On Evolution & Creation

[TagliatelliMonster]

I will try to follow but can't say I understand every point others may bring up.

This particular point has been brought to your attention on a near weekly basis for the past 3 YEARS

Please, don't pretend as if you are not aware of it.
It makes the whole situation look even worse then it already is.


Meanwhile, STILL no acknowledgement of this point. STILL no acknowledgement of how you insist on arguing this strawman.

This stubborn denial / dodging only makes me predict that it is only a matter of time before we see you once again utter the humongously ignorant statement of "X remains X" as if it is an argument against evolution.

Wonna bet? Any takers?

 

[Audie]

You forgot to answer the 2 questions.

Sounds like you are one those people who get a kick out of falsely accusing others of things you yourself are guilty of.

I also note that you are doing your outmost best to avoid answering / ignoring my posts addressed to you, where I point out your clear black on white unwillingness to learn from your mistakes. Where I point out how you INSIST on making the same mistake over and over again. In the post right above yours, I even quote several posts where I literally PREDICTED that you would once again make the same mistake (that you had corrected on a near weekly basis for the past 3 years) in this very thread. Only to see you do exactly that no more then 23 posts later.

What's that about?

Do you really think that when witnessing such stubborn behavior, we take you seriously when you say you want to learn, that you are actually interested in these explanations you pretend to ask for, that you will read these explanations with attention and in good faith when they are given and that it is NOT a complete and utter waste of our valuable time to provide you with these explanations?


Is this an example of this good christian character we keep hearing about?

I think that at this point, it might be a good time for you to do some reflecting and ask yourself if this is really the way you wish to present yourself to the public.

There’s a super easy cure for this problem.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There’s a super easy cure for this problem.

Sure, but I like a challenge

 

[YoursTrue]

Still not a single comment on the point I keep bringing up.

Let's have a meme then

View attachment 97784

Yes, so far we see they do remain finches. Oh wait! I didn't see the gun...hmm maybe I won't say they remain finches ...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, so far we see they do remain finches.

Let's see if you managed to learn something after 3 years worth of repeating the same point over and over and over again.


Try and answer these couple of questions about the statement "finches remain finches" without looking it up:

1. does the statement support or contradict evolution theory?
2a. if it supports the theory, why does it support it?
2b. if it contradicts the theory, why does it contradict it?


Give it your best shot.
I don't require an essay. 10-20 words would suffice to answer.

 

[Audie]

Sure, but I like a challenge

i dont consider that a worthy challenge.

 

[metis]

I understand. However, perhaps at this point I should ask for a definition of science. I mean I appreciate let's say the investigations it took for scientists to come up with a formula for a vaccine to prevent polio and other debilitating diseases.

The flu shots change year to year because viruses, like all life forms, can and do mutate.

 

[Astrophile]

Can you show me one instance, other than a mule. But that mule cannot reproduce anything.
She can produce a lot of work.

I don't see how this is an answer to anything in my post. Can you explain in more detail?
Labradoodles are the product of crosses between Labrador Retrievers and Poodles. They are able to reproduce, although apparently they suffer from poor health - Labradoodle - Wikipedia .

Yes.
But the animals and fowl will produce offspring of like kind
Show me one critter that produced a totally different critter.

Yes. Every living thing produces offspring of the same species as itself. Ever since Darwin's time, biologists have emphasised that evolution is a slow process, the result of the accumulation of small genetic variations over long periods. The evolution of a new species from its ancestors requires thousands or tens of thousands of generations.

It depends what you regard as 'a totally different critter'. Are wolves, Great Danes and chihuahuas totally different? Are chimpanzees and gorillas totally different? Were Australopithecus africanus, Homo habilis and Homo erectus totally different? I would answer 'No' to each of these questions. What would you say?

 

[Astrophile]

All erosion does is re-arrange what is already available.

Enjoy,

Not exactly. Erosion destroys some rocks and transports the eroded material to a different place, where it is deposited to form new sedimentary rocks. These new sedimentary rocks may be be a different type from the original rocks that were eroded, particularly if these were igneous or metamorphic rocks.

None of the primordial rocks that were formed by the accretion of the Earth are still in existence. They have all been recycled many times and transformed into different types of rock (igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary) that did not exist on the primitive Earth.

 

[Astrophile]

The BBT is based on there being non-existence and all of a sudden the universe began to expand into the universe the universe we have today. You may like your version of the BBT but I don't know what you base it on.

No. There was not a time when the universe did not exist and a later time when the universe began to exist. You mustn't think of the universe as having a beginning in time. Time itself, or, rather space-time, is as much an integral part of the universe as mass-energy, so the universe has existed for the whole of time. I know that this is difficult to understand, but that is in the nature of physics under the extreme conditions of the Big Bang.

 

[Astrophile]

WE want me to reason? I have reasoned the matter out. I see the arguments pro evolution. I no longer believe them. And as a result of my Bible study I decide that -- evolution as that which is taught now is not true. Do I say that there are no inherited differences that are apparent among organisms, such as tribal characteristics? No. I do not say that. Genetics can transmit characteristics such as long or short limbs. But I also do not ascribe that to the general theory of evolution as it stands. By that I mean the idea that fish became or evolved to land dwelling creatures.

First, as a result of my Bible study I have concluded that the Bible does not say anything useful about the origin of the universe, the age and geological history of the Earth, or the origin and evolution of life. Second, would you like to explain what the Bible has taught you about these specific topics, and how this teaching explains the observed facts of astronomy, geology and biology?

 

[Astrophile]

I feel for life to start, it needs to start complete not incomplete, like what you see when you look at any person.
[ A fully developed human being, with all of its parts functioning. ]

If the first human was complete In the first moment of life, that sounds like intelligent design not evolution. In my opinion.

None of us were complete in the first moment of life. It required several months before we took on even the semblance of a human form.

 

[YoursTrue]

First, as a result of my Bible study I have concluded that the Bible does not say anything useful about the origin of the universe, the age and geological history of the Earth, or the origin and evolution of life. Second, would you like to explain what the Bible has taught you about these specific topics, and how this teaching explains the observed facts of astronomy, geology and biology?

I think it says plenty of useful things about life and the origin of life as well as the universe. But it is not a science textbook.
Genesis 1:1 states - "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

 

[Astrophile]

My own common sense tells me the first human was complete. because if it was not complete It would have not survive past the first day.

Does not common sense explain, the first of any species life, needs a brain, heart, lungs and everything else that makes that particular species alive.

For any species to remain alive for more than a few moments, that species requires it's vital organs, all at the same time, does it not?

How do you think that our evolutionary ancestors the australopithecines survived past the first day of their lives?

 

[YoursTrue]

No. There was not a time when the universe did not exist and a later time when the universe began to exist. You mustn't think of the universe as having a beginning in time. Time itself, or, rather space-time, is as much an integral part of the universe as mass-energy, so the universe has existed for the whole of time. I know that this is difficult to understand, but that is in the nature of physics under the extreme conditions of the Big Bang.

Perhaps this will help to respond to a point you made. You said that the universe always existed, if I understand you correctly. Many hypothesize it came about in the form of the "Big Bang." Please notice what BBC Science Focus says about this. You can check the link, so I only quote briefly from it: "The Universe has not existed forever. It was born. Around 13.82 billion years ago, matter, energy, space – and time – erupted into being in a fireball called the Big Bang. It expanded and, from the cooling debris, there congealed galaxies – islands of stars of which our Milky Way is one among about two trillion. This is the Big Bang theory." I can't vouch for all of that but it is supposed by some that the universe possibly came about as a result of the "Big Bang." How do you feel about that? https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/what-was-before-the-big-bang-everything-you-need-to-know

 

[Astrophile]

Perhaps this will help to respond to a point you made. You said that the universe always existed, if I understand you correctly.

You have misunderstood me. I said that the universe has existed for the whole of time; I did not say either that the universe is infinitely old or that past time is infinite. If I had said that there is no boundary to the Earth's surface, you would not think that I meant that the Earth's surface area is infinite.

Many hypothesize it came about in the form of the "Big Bang." Please notice what BBC Science Focus says about this. You can check the link, so I only quote briefly from it: "The Universe has not existed forever. It was born. Around 13.82 billion years ago, matter, energy, space – and time – erupted into being in a fireball called the Big Bang. It expanded and, from the cooling debris, there congealed galaxies – islands of stars of which our Milky Way is one among about two trillion. This is the Big Bang theory." I can't vouch for all of that but it is supposed by some that the universe possibly came about as a result of the "Big Bang." How do you feel about that? https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/what-was-before-the-big-bang-everything-you-need-to-know

Yes, I accept the Big Bang theory for the origin of the universe, at least provisionally.

 

[Astrophile]

I think it says plenty of useful things about life and the origin of life as well as the universe.

Please give examples.

But it is not a science textbook.

Agreed. In my opinion the authors of the Bible were writing about the supreme importance of the god that they believed in; they had no interest in explaining the physical causes of natural phenomena.

Genesis 1:1 states - "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

This says only who created the heavens and the earth; it doesn't say how old the universe is or how it originated.

 

[YoursTrue]

You have misunderstood me. I said that the universe has existed for the whole of time; I did not say either that the universe is infinitely old or that past time is infinite. If I had said that there is no boundary to the Earth's surface, you would not think that I meant that the Earth's surface area is infinite.

You said I misunderstood you. Here is what you said: "There was not a time when the universe did not exist and a later time when the universe began to exist. You mustn't think of the universe as having a beginning in time."
I'm not getting into the concept of time now in reference to how long or if the universe ever existed, although the article cited does offer ideas as to how old scientists think the universe is. The universe exists. The Bible says it had a start. Scientists may ponder over the natural substances and that's ok with me. The Bible does not go into detail as to how God made the universe. Anyway, have a good day and perhaps we can talk another time about these things.

 

[John53]

You are among those believing in the theory of evolution; I no longer do. Therefore it would be better if you, or those who are also advocates of the science to detail and explain their position. Thank you.

You keep complaining we don't know how to answer question, lead by example and show us how to do it. Besides the sub forum is called evolution v creation. As an advocate of creation you are qualified to field questions. Show us how to be better...

1. Define what "kind" means when used in the bible as an animal grouping? (@icant didn't bother answering this one for me yesterday)
2. What relevance is there in constantly repeating "monkeys haven't invented telescopes? (I've asked you this several times and you've never responded)

 

[ppp]

I'm not getting into the concept of time now in reference to how long or if the universe ever existed

Time is a function of the expansion of the universe. Time has no meaning outside of those bounds.