Part 3 "Can you prove Evolution?"

[Objectivist]

"where the Lord said "?? You got tape on this?

 

[nate895]

"where the Lord said "?? You got tape on this?

Once again, you are arguing with something that nobody could ever prove. I accept as an axiom that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. I don't need proof of it. Same as the fact that you, as an Objectivist, believe that everything that is true can be observed in an objective manner. I don't believe that.

 

[pacelli]

Hell, slavery is fully sanctioned in the precious infallible Bible.

Where and under what circumstances?

 

[nate895]

Mesogen, as for slavery, the New Testament states that slaves should seek freedom when possible. The New Testament represents the New Covenant that was prophesied in the Old Testament. The aspects of the Old Covenant were strict adherence to the Mosaic Law, circumcision, and a few other aspects. Slavery was only sanctioned for non-Israelites in the Old Testament, under the the Old Covenant of the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Law has been abolished as absolutely necessary for salvation, and slavery's sanction has been removed now that the followers of the Lord need not be an Israelite, or at least an adopted one.

 

[Objectivist]

Once again, you are arguing with something that nobody could ever prove. I accept as an axiom that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. I don't need proof of it. Same as the fact that you, as an Objectivist, believe that everything that is true can be observed in an objective manner. I don't believe that.

SO you live in fairy tale world and you have no axiom.

 

[Bman]

You don't like the Bible, so therefore, it should not be used as proof for Jesus's existence?! Are you kidding me? That is one of the silliest fallacies in existence today, known as "guilt by association".

Prove to me that cells exist, but don't use a microscope to prove it. That is exactly how you've just reasoned. Thank you for stacking the deck.

Timeout!

So the hubble telescope can prove that light existed over 13 billion years ago, but the universe is only 10,000 years old?

Tell me again how one comes t that conclusion?

We have lots of evidence from fossils. Being able to date objects from the layer they reside in terra. Seeing how the further back something goes the simpler it gets.

There's certainly more evidence that evolution occured rather than the majority of creationist views. The only creationists who deserve any credit are ones who simply say. I don't know how it happened but I know god was involved. That's at least honest and demonstrating that you are not missing some key parts of your brain.

 

[idiom]

Lol thats easy. God is deceiving you to test your faith.

 

[nate895]

Timeout!

So the hubble telescope can prove that light existed over 13 billion years ago, but the universe is only 10,000 years old?

Tell me again how one comes t that conclusion?

We have lots of evidence from fossils. Being able to date objects from the layer they reside in terra. Seeing how the further back something goes the simpler it gets.

There's certainly more evidence that evolution occured rather than the majority of creationist views. The only creationists who deserve any credit are ones who simply say. I don't know how it happened but I know god was involved. That's at least honest and demonstrating that you are not missing some key parts of your brain.

There is a theory that when God said He made the stars on the fourth day, He meant that we could observe every star on the fourth day of creation. He was using "observed time" instead of "calculated time," you have to remember He was giving these to a group of people who knew nothing of the speed of light. When they saw something happen in the night sky, they assume it happened right when they saw it. It would have made sense to use the time that mankind could have observed it because that was the only time that would have made sense to the ancients. This in no way contradicts the inerrancy of scripture, nor does it change the meaning based on ideas we bring to the Bible. It just means we use the historical meaning of when something "happened" in the sky.

 

[nate895]

SO you live in fairy tale world and you have no axiom.

You are the fool with no axiom, for you did not start with the Lord. My Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, is my axiom. You are doomed to forever coming up with new ideas about the past happened in your worldview, when I know the basics. All I need to change from time-to-time is the models for what the Holy Bible does not describe.

 

[Mesogen]

Microevolution is an observed fact.

Then what about, over the course of millions of years, "micro"evolution adding up to "macro"evolution?

Changes in the environment cause natural selection to select for the more adaptive members of a population. Over time the environment changes so much that the later members of the population would not be able to recognize or mate with members of the earlier species.

Sometimes these species exist at the same time.

Then there is the very illustrative example of Ring Species (more aptly a Species Ring).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

I believe, given the account of creation where the Lord said that he created "kinds" (as opposed to specific species and subspecies), that most species and subspecies are the result of the laws of natural selection, genetic variation inherent in the original "kind," and mutations.

Are the "end" populations of species rings of the same "kind"?

However, no genetic mutation has ever been observed as to increase genetic information, which is absolutely necessary for advances in complexity.

What is your definition of genetic information? Or of information for that matter? Or for complexity?

Also, the law of biogenesis dictates that life must come from life, and cells are incredibly complex as to make it beyond imagination that they came about by chance. To say something like that is to say that it is possible for a tornado to go through a junkyard and assemble a jumbo jet, which is impossible (meaning, it stretches credulity well beyond the breaking) even if the junkyard had all the prerequisite parts and otherwise proper conditions.

Been visiting uncommondescent.com or reading Michael Behe and William Dembski?

Most scientists engage in historical "science" when they speak of how one kind beget another (i.e., dinosaurs became birds). They could never prove their assertions, even if they found a fossil with them all lined in a row the way naturalist evolutionists said they evolved. What is presented as the science of evolution, is actually an interpretation of the past from an atheistic naturalist worldview.

There are many theist (even Christian) scientists out there that accept the theory of evolution.

Francis Collins comes to mind.

Because I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, I believe the Earth (and the universe in observed time as opposed to calculated time) was created in the six days of creation week. Therefore, when I see scientific evidence, I interpret it in that light. I fully admit to this. When I see the rock layers with fossils, I see the global catastrophic flood of Noah. When I hear dragon legends, I hear dinosaurs in the time of man. Naturalists do not see this because they do not subscribe to my axiom. I do not see what naturalists see in the fossil record because I do not subscribe to their axiom.

So how could plants live before the sun was formed? There was light on the Earth also before the sun was formed. Where did that light come from? But he formed the Sun and moon and "set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness." What was going on before this? I guess the plants only had to hang out in the darkness for one day. But wait, there was already light and it was already separated from the darkness.

And where the hell did Cain's wife come from?

 

[Bman]

There is a theory that when God said He made the stars on the fourth day, He meant that we could observe every star on the fourth day of creation. He was using "observed time" instead of "calculated time," you have to remember He was giving these to a group of people who knew nothing of the speed of light. When they saw something happen in the night sky, they assume it happened right when they saw it. It would have made sense to use the time that mankind could have observed it because that was the only time that would have made sense to the ancients. This in no way contradicts the inerrancy of scripture, nor does it change the meaning based on ideas we bring to the Bible. It just means we use the historical meaning of when something "happened" in the sky.

What it does contradict is anyone who thinks the universe or earth were created some 10,000 years ago.

 

[nate895]

Then what about, over the course of millions of years, "micro"evolution adding up to "macro"evolution?

Changes in the environment cause natural selection to select for the more adaptive members of a population. Over time the environment changes so much that the later members of the population would not be able to recognize or mate with members of the earlier species.

Sometimes these species exist at the same time.

Then there is the very illustrative example of Ring Species (more aptly a Species Ring).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

"Microevolution" does not necessarily lead to "macroevolution." We have not observed, nor do I believe we ever will, a dog becoming something other than a dog. That doesn't mean mutations won't create a new kind of dog, as we have already observed.

Are the "end" populations of species rings of the same "kind"?

Yes, an example would be dogs. Most dog species probably came from an original pair of wolves (the two who went with Noah on the Ark). This would explain how all the different "kinds" of animals could have fit on the ark. Noah could not have fit every species onto the Ark, but he could have fit a broader grouping (ranging anywhere between 2,000 and 36,000) into the Ark, and still have had half for storage of food and other necessities while he was waiting out the Flood. Therefore, microevolution was necessary to repopulate the Earth with many different species as opposed to a few species.

What is your definition of genetic information? Or of information for that matter? Or for complexity?

Genetic information would be the DNA that is read to perform the functions necessary for the creature to survive. I.E.. I do not believe that the information to create a kidney could have simply been an added mutation. Complexity refers to more information and organs being necessary for the creature to function at optimal efficiency. Adding a kidney increases complexity, and is necessary for land animals to function. I do not believe that these could have come about through random genetic mutations.

Been visiting uncommondescent.com or reading Michael Behe and William Dembski?

No, I haven't.

There are many theist (even Christian) scientists out there that accept the theory of evolution.

Francis Collins comes to mind.

They started with the secular humanist interpretations of the past and how it happened. They didn't find all the answers they were looking for, and so came to God. If they were being consistent, they would have become deists. The entire premise of the Messiah figure in Judaism is that Adam and Eve were created in the image of God (not evolved to become more like God), that they ate of the fruit which gave us the curse of death and decay, and this applied to the entire universe. Man is a creature of sin because we were all in Adam's loins when he chose to eat of the fruit. Therefore, it is necessary that God in the form of the Messiah (Jesus Christ) come down to Earth and die for our sins so that we may live eternal life.

Edit: In no way would this take away from their salvation. Whoever believes Jesus died on the cross for their sins will be saved, even if they live in a state of cognitive dissonance.

So how could plants live before the sun was formed? There was light on the Earth also before the sun was formed. Where did that light come from? But he formed the Sun and moon and "set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness." What was going on before this? I guess the plants only had to hang out in the darkness for one day. But wait, there was already light and it was already separated from the darkness.

And where the hell did Cain's wife come from?

The plants were made the day before the sun, and therefore the maximum amount of time they "lived" without the sun was 24 hours, and possibly as short as 8 hours, as you rightfully point out. Also, death and decay did not happen until after Adam's sin, so they could have went on forever without the sun if it weren't for Adam's sin. As for where the light comes from before the sun, God is a supernatural being that has the entire universe at His command. He can do whatever He wants, if He wants light with no sun, He gets light with no sun. Maybe He created a massive light bulb.

As for Cain's wife, it could have been his sister or niece. The Bible mentions that Adam and Eve had other children. Is this consistent with the laws of God? Yes, God created Adam and Eve and they were "perfect," meaning they had no flaws. It was only after sin did death, decay, and mutations occur as part of the curse. Therefore, Cain and his brothers and sisters would not have had very many mutations, and they most likely would have been different from one another. It would have presented little risk to marry your sister at that point. The reason why God institutes a law against that later is because thousands of years of the curse has led to many families having similar mutations to one another, making inbreeding a risky procedure that creates mutants.

 

[nate895]

What it does contradict is anyone who thinks the universe or earth were created some 10,000 years ago.

What are you talking about?

 

[Mesogen]

"Microevolution" does not necessarily lead to "macroevolution." We have not observed, nor do I believe we ever will, a dog becoming something other than a dog. That doesn't mean mutations won't create a new kind of dog, as we have already observed. Yes, an example would be dogs. Most dog species probably came from an original pair of wolves (the two who went with Noah on the Ark).

Dog is just some word we use to describe what looks to us like similar animals.

All of what we commonly call "dogs" fit into the Family Canidae. This includes all Wolves, Foxes, Jackals, etc.

Are these all of the "Dog Kind"?

I'm just trying to reconcile the Linnean taxonomy with Baraminology.

If we can say that all of the Family Canidae are dogs in the dog kind, then surely there has been some "macro"evolution since the Great Flood. If there were only 2 individual canids (dog kind) aboard the ark, and now there are a few dozen species of canids, then "macro"evolution is necessary to explain the diversity of life within the literal Biblical creationist model.

This would explain how all the different "kinds" of animals could have fit on the ark.

No, it still would not until a rigorous definition of the term "kind" is developed and then all the "kinds" on Earth were categorized. Then we'd have to determine if the number of kinds could then fit on a vessel the size described in Genesis.

Noah could not have fit every species onto the Ark, but he could have fit a broader grouping (ranging anywhere between 2,000 and 36,000) into the Ark, and still have had half for storage of food and other necessities while he was waiting out the Flood. Therefore, microevolution was necessary to repopulate the Earth with many different species as opposed to a few species.

Where do you draw the line with "kind"? Roughly correlating with the Linnean system, would you draw the line at Class? Family?

Maybe you would discard the Linnean system altogether and say that a "kind" is simply a population that can interbreed. Then you're really talking about a huge number of "kinds." Way more than 36,000, especially if you want to bring insects and arthropods into this.

Genetic information would be the DNA that is read to perform the functions necessary for the creature to survive.

Ok, so genetic information would be a DNA sequence that performs a function.
If we change the order of DNA and change the function, would that be an increase or decrease in genetic information? You could have the same number of base pairs, but the arrangement changed.

Like this:

isawtwobeetlesmakinglove
anywomanthatcandowilldo
hslauebfkxusdnckdyokadfh

Which character string has more information?

Some organisms have WAY more genetic information in their cells that humans. Some very simple plants have over 1200 chromosomes. So genetic information might not have so much to do with complexity.

Complexity refers to more information and organs being necessary for the creature to function at optimal efficiency. Adding a kidney increases complexity, and is necessary for land animals to function. I do not believe that these could have come about through random genetic mutations.

Well, I thought we were talking about complexity with respect to information, but lets go with what you wrote.

You're saying that adding a kidney increases complexity, so it's beneficial (if you needed a kidney in the first place, not all land animals have kidneys, insects, etc. have filtering cells). Does that mean that adding complexity is always beneficial?

If I had eyes on the soles of my feet, that would be more complex, but it would hardly be beneficial.

No, I haven't.

Your arguments were pretty much theirs.

They started with the secular humanist interpretations of the past and how it happened. They didn't find all the answers they were looking for, and so came to God. If they were being consistent, they would have become deists. The entire premise of the Messiah figure in Judaism is that Adam and Eve were created in the image of God (not evolved to become more like God), that they ate of the fruit which gave us the curse of death and decay, and this applied to the entire universe.

Holy Mackerel, the whole universe? So there was no "decay" before Eve ate the fruit? No radioactive decay? No orbital decay? Hell, no entropy?

I'm curious what you consider to be decay and what didn't decay before Eve ate the fruit.

Man is a creature of sin because we were all in Adam's loins when he chose to eat of the fruit. Therefore, it is necessary that God in the form of the Messiah (Jesus Christ) come down to Earth and die for our sins so that we may live eternal life.

Edit: In no way would this take away from their salvation. Whoever believes Jesus died on the cross for their sins will be saved, even if they live in a state of cognitive dissonance.

And here we go again with a God that has never been dead being dead for 3 days.

The plants were made the day before the sun, and therefore the maximum amount of time they "lived" without the sun was 24 hours, and possibly as short as 8 hours, as you rightfully point out.

But what was the other light? The light that didn't come from the (any) sun?

Also, death and decay did not happen until after Adam's sin, so they could have went on forever without the sun if it weren't for Adam's sin.

So photosynthesis was not necessary for plants. Got it.

And Adam never had to eat, although the whole Garden of Eden was given to him to eat. Um ok.

As for where the light comes from before the sun, God is a supernatural being that has the entire universe at His command. He can do whatever He wants, if He wants light with no sun, He gets light with no sun. Maybe He created a massive light bulb.

But the Bible seems to be referring to the invention of light itself. It doesn't matter. I'm glad you are deferring to the miraculous and magical nature of the Genesis story. With miracles there is no need to look for physical evidence of their occurrence.

Just like the flood. If people want to say it was magic and a miracle, then do that. But people should say that this or that is evidence of a flood, when it's not.

As for Cain's wife, it could have been his sister or niece. The Bible mentions that Adam and Eve had other children. Is this consistent with the laws of God? Yes, God created Adam and Eve and they were "perfect," meaning they had no flaws. It was only after sin did death, decay, and mutations occur as part of the curse. Therefore, Cain and his brothers and sisters would not have had very many mutations, and they most likely would have been different from one another. It would have presented little risk to marry your sister at that point. The reason why God institutes a law against that later is because thousands of years of the curse has led to many families having similar mutations to one another, making inbreeding a risky procedure that creates mutants.

So does the Bible condemn incest and inbreeding anywhere?

If not, the Bible is cool with inbreeding (that would explain a lot of the south) but not cool with homosexuality. Makes sense I guess.

 

[pacelli]

Why do you hate god so much? Why do you hate people who say they love god so much?

 

[PaulaGem]

Edit: In no way would this take away from their salvation. Whoever believes Jesus died on the cross for their sins will be saved, even if they live in a state of cognitive dissonance. .

Talk about "congnitive dissonance"... Claiming you believe in an eternal, all loving God who us unchanging and totally just. (according to Yeshua and the Bible)

Then saying that a temporal artifact changed all that and created a new plan of salvation.

Either God is the I AM - or he is .... whatever your religion says he/she is.

 

[PaulaGem]

Why do you hate god so much? Why do you hate people who say they love god so much?

It appears to me that the issue is respecting God - expecting him to be the consistent eternal being witnessed to by most religious traditions. When these religions fail the One and create a false god or a cultural icon, they blaspheme.

 

[tribute_13]

Theocrat, there are some times when I'd like to give you a big ol hug and others when I want to smack the dogshit out of you.

Can people stop associating Evolution with the NWO? Its a ridiculous argument. That like saying that a white supremacist gave RP money therefore RP is wrong about everything. "Oh, the NWO proponents support evolution so evolution is WRONG and HAS NO CREDIBILITY!"

Despite the fact that we have genetic evidence of why there's a .1% difference between man and the Great Apes. We have a fused set of chromosomes found in Primates which explains our blatent differences.

The thing I can't stand is that everyone is either Evolution is 100% correct, or evolution is 100% wrong.

Where is everyone that thinks, WE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING so stop acting like one theory is the tell all explanation for our origins. There's a possibility that there are aspects of evolution that aren't explainable or don't make sense and there's also a possibility that we weren't made from dirt and ribs.

 

[PaulaGem]

. There's a possibility that there are aspects of evolution that aren't explainable or don't make sense and there's also a possibility that we weren't made from dirt and ribs.

But I have a problem with this statement - dirt has aged organic componants. So unless "dirt' isn't dirt as we think of it today, this is impossible according to the seven day theory.

 

[Objectivist]

I am putting out a chalengedl to any one that can show me that Evolution is true!

I dare you.

From http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=194110

Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the mailman isn't your daddy?