On Evolution & Creation

[walt]

It's not the most interesting video, but I'd run across it earlier today and it seemed relevant to your question.
I am interested in apologetics, though, if you'd like to discuss any particular claim.

Thank you so much, but I just don't want to argue about any words. I actually feel it's perfectly fine for everyone to understand things their own way.

 

[Valjean]

The goalposts are real. They are there. They have not moved.

???? -- Moving the goalposts means changing the venue; shifting the event in question to another place without addressing the question at hand.
What goalposts did you have in mind?

I still don't want to visit Nepal, however. It seems, however, like a pretty popular place, and seems people KNOW, or should know that they're risking their lives climbing Mt. Everest, but they do it anyway. When I read of such excursions, I think: how stupid. But then there are people who like doing things like that.
Now if I were a scientist in that field, however -- of expanding lungs due to atmospheric pressure, I might want to visit Nepal. And it's an interesting thought as to what would happen if they had relations with those with lungs not developed they are now. In a different climate. But it's not particularly a subject of interest to me, if I were a scientist, I think I'd rather work in a lab.
Soooo, with that all in mind, have a good evening.

 

[Valjean]

Can you demonstrate abiogenesis as science definitely, absolutely say it happened, please?

Huh? The alternative would be no life, wouldn't it?

We aren't disputing the fact, just the mechanism.
Life happened on a lifeless planet. Where did it come from if it wasn't generated?

 

[Valjean]

Thank you so much, but I just don't want to argue about any words. I actually feel it's perfectly fine for everyone to understand things their own way.

I'm not proposing a discussion of semantics. I'm just saying I'm open to discussing any of the claimed "proofs" that keep coming up in theological discussions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What the heck, I haven't seen this complete a PRATT list in years and this guy seems to be new, he even has a podcast that came out in June, Walt needs to discover Talk Origins but I sense a very strong desire to insist on two sides cuz I have a video,

An Index to Creationist Claims

In that particular video he responds to the claims of a person that should have known better. The man has a PhD in biochemistry and yet he makes errors that an undergrad would not make. Creation "scientists" are often like that. When they lie, because they are at least trying to look as if they are following the scientific evidence, they are easily refuted. That tells us that they are lying and they know it. Just like Steve Austin when he dated the Mt St. Helens ash.

 

[YoursTrue]

???? -- Moving the goalposts means changing the venue; shifting the event in question to another place without addressing the question at hand.
What goalposts did you have in mind?

Wayytt a minute here -- didn't you bring up goalposts first? So ok, I'll relent...here are my goalposts on the playing field-- the theory of evolution cannot be tested, it does not matter in reality what anyone says as if it can be tested. It cannot be tested. It cannot be observed. To say that birds change beak sizes is not observation of the theory, no matter how someone may try to twist it. Because -- yes -- the birds stay birds. There is also nothing to prove or show that the first cells replicated themselves and evolved to whatever they are proposed by scientists to have evolved to. Now, since I am convinced by reason (no evidence beyond that of conjecture about fossils and as if somehow these cells have a magic quality to replicate themselves and mutate) that evolution happened by mutation, that it where I am leaving it now.

 

[YoursTrue]

Huh? The alternative would be no life, wouldn't it?

We aren't disputing the fact, just the mechanism.
Life happened on a lifeless planet. Where did it come from if it wasn't generated?

No, if there was no "abiogenesis," there would still be life. That theory of abiogenesis is untrue and debunked by reason. It is fantasy. The reason I say there would be life without the so-called "abiogenesis" is because yes, I believe God gave life to that which He wants to. But leave God out of it, if you want to. The more I consider it, the idea of abiogenesis stemming from whatever a scientist may imagine, is getting more and more absurd. Nothing to show abiogenesis, and nothing to show the first living matter on earth and nothing to show what that first living matter evolved to. But thanks for conversation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wayytt a minute here -- didn't you bring up goalposts first? So ok, I'll relent...here are my goalposts on the playing field-- the theory of evolution cannot be tested, it does not matter in reality what anyone says as if it can be tested. It cannot be tested. It cannot be observed. To say that birds change beak sizes is not observation of the theory, no matter how someone may try to twist it. Because -- yes -- the birds stay birds. There is also nothing to prove or show that the first cells replicated themselves and evolved to whatever they are proposed by scientists to have evolved to. Now, since I am convinced by reason (no evidence beyond that of conjecture about fossils and as if somehow these cells have a magic quality to replicate themselves and mutate) that evolution happened by mutation, that it where I am leaving it now.

Your inability to test it does not mean that it cannot be tested. I know of more than one way that it can be tested.

 

[John53]

Wayytt a minute here -- didn't you bring up goalposts first? So ok, I'll relent...here are my goalposts on the playing field-- the theory of evolution cannot be tested, it does not matter in reality what anyone says as if it can be tested. It cannot be tested. It cannot be observed. To say that birds change beak sizes is not observation of the theory, no matter how someone may try to twist it. Because -- yes -- the birds stay birds. There is also nothing to prove or show that the first cells replicated themselves and evolved to whatever they are proposed by scientists to have evolved to. Now, since I am convinced by reason (no evidence beyond that of conjecture about fossils and as if somehow these cells have a magic quality to replicate themselves and mutate) that evolution happened by mutation, that it where I am leaving it now.

Birds changing beak size and shape to adapt to different conditions is evolution. Try reading Darwin's book.

 

[YoursTrue]

Birds changing beak size and shape to adapt to different conditions is evolution. Try reading Darwin's book.

You may (and Darwin may) say it means evolution, but I suppose you also may say that tribes with short arms and legs is also evolution. Sorry, but birds remain birds, humans are humans.

 

[John53]

You may (and Darwin may) say it means evolution, but I suppose you also may say that tribes with short arms and legs is also evolution. Sorry, but birds remain birds, humans are humans.

So you know more than the bloke who wrote the book on the theory?

You should enlighten us and the scientific community as to what evolution actually is.

 

[Valjean]

Wayytt a minute here -- didn't you bring up goalposts first? So ok, I'll relent...here are my goalposts on the playing field-- the theory of evolution cannot be tested, it does not matter in reality what anyone says as if it can be tested. It cannot be tested.

!!!! It's been tested thousands of times in a hundred different ways. Farmers and herders have been recreating its methods to improve crops and livestock for thousands of years.
I thought you'd been studying the theory and reading our posts, but you seem to have no understanding of it at all.

It cannot be observed. To say that birds change beak sizes is not observation of the theory, no matter how someone may try to twist it. Because -- yes -- the birds stay birds.

It's observed every day!
Yes finches give birth to finches, but given enough time and change, their progeny will eventually be different species. The beaks are just one change. Why is the accumulation of changes so hard to grasp?
Latin speakers always gave birth to latin speakers, but with enough small changes, over enough time, it became French. Why is that so hard to believe?

There is also nothing to prove or show that the first cells replicated themselves and evolved to whatever they are proposed by scientists to have evolved to.

Yet we're here, and weren't here before the first cells began replicating with variation. How did we get here? magic poofing ex nihilo?

Now, since I am convinced by reason (no evidence beyond that of conjecture about fossils and as if somehow these cells have a magic quality to replicate themselves and mutate) that evolution happened by mutation, that it where I am leaving it now.

If cells have no ability to replicate themselves wouldn't they disappear after one generation?
Now you're showing again that you have no understanding of the ToE, even after years of repeated explanation here.
Only mutation? What about gene flow, natural selection, sexual selection, sexual variation, or genetic drift?

 

[Valjean]

No, if there was no "abiogenesis," there would still be life. That theory of abiogenesis is untrue and debunked by reason. It is fantasy. The reason I say there would be life without the so-called "abiogenesis" is because yes, I believe God gave life to that which He wants to. But leave God out of it, if you want to. The more I consider it, the idea of abiogenesis stemming from whatever a scientist may imagine, is getting more and more absurd. Nothing to show abiogenesis, and nothing to show the first living matter on earth and nothing to show what that first living matter evolved to. But thanks for conversation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have never said evolution or devolution didn't take place I just don't believe in the evolution talked about here as I have never seen the millions of fossils Darwin said we would see if he was correct.

The world doesn't owe us any fossils. We are lucky to even have as many as we do. Fossilization is a very rare process.

For the fossil record to support evolution, it matters not how many fossils we find. What matters is that those that we DO find, make sense in context of evolutionary history. And they do. We don't find rabbits in pre-cambrian layers. We don't find Great Apes together with dinosaurs. We don't find 450 million year old tetrapods.

Instead, what we do find are a whole bunch of species and transitionals which make perfect sense in context of evolutionary history in terms of age, anatomical features and geographic distribution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Right now I just want to address the idea of "magic poofing." That we cannot see how life was formed on the earth by God does not mean life came about by magic poofing.

Magic poofing, is what creationists believe in.

Abiogenesis hypothesis, are the opposite of magic poofing.
That's just complex chemistry.

Complex molecules form all the time through chemical reaction. There's no "magic" or "poofing" involved.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You may (and Darwin may) say it means evolution, but I suppose you also may say that tribes with short arms and legs is also evolution. Sorry, but birds remain birds, humans are humans.

How many more times are you going to repeat this falsehood?
I guess the answer is indefinitely.

You give us all no choice but to conclude that you argue in extremely bad faith.
You had this error corrected a bazillion times since at least June 2021.

Why do you insist on being wrong?

As I said the other day: the only way people can argue against evolution, is by lying about it or misrepresenting it


For the bazzlionth-and-one time: if birds would produce non-birds, evolution would be falsified, disproven, shown incorrect

 

[Hooded_Crow]

For a thread titled 'On Evolution and Creation', the discussion seems a bit one-sided at the moment.
Could the creationists here provide a detailed, evidence-based case for special creation, rather than merely attacking the theory of evolution?

 

[metis]

the theory of evolution

So, what you are saying is that everything stays exactly the same.

 

[icant]

If you believe differently then show us evidence of any God existing and can do things.

What kind of evidence would be acceptable?

Enjoy,

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Since I don't know which translation you are talking about I will use the KJV as it is the most recognized and many of the newer ones used all they legally could and still get copyrights on their version.

In Genesis 1:1 the first mistranslation takes place in the second and third words being switched from Hebrew to English. The verb is before the subject of the verb not as it is in English. Which led to a big discussion of verse one and its entire translation which changes the complete meaning of the verse.

It properly translates as, "In the Beginning (all from one word) created (verb) God (subject of the verb) the Heavens and the Earth.
Genesis 1:1 is a declarative statement of completed action the earth was ready to be inhabited and was in Genesis chapter 2 verse 4 which starts the history of the day God created the heavens and in Genesis 2:7 the first lifeform was formed from the dust of the ground. Genesis 2:4- 4:24 gives us the history of the man formed from the dust of the ground and his descendants.
That is the original creation story.
Genesis 1:2 starts a completely different story in the KJV the first word is translated as a conjunction when it is marked in the original language as a disjunctive conjunction. The LXX translated it "Now" I think it should have been translated as "But". the word Hebrew word הָיָה translated "was" Is a terrible translation as it is not even mentioned in the definition of הָיָה. :Which is:

1. to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass.

הָיָה is translated as was in Genesis 1:2 and 3:1 and in not other place and as you can see it is not in the definition of הָיָה. In Exodus
Exo 3:14
And God H430 said H559 unto Moses, H4872 I AM H1961 THAT I AM: H1961 and he said, H559 Thus shalt thou say H559 unto the children H1121 of Israel, H3478 I AM hath sent H7971 me unto you.
I left Strong's numbers there so you could see הָיָה is the word translated I AM.

Lexicon :: Strong's H1962 - hayyâ

הַיָּה​

The next mistranslation is in Genesis chapter 1 is found in Genesis 1:5

I will get to the rest of your message later I have to go for now.

Enjoy,

You have completely misunderstood the fundamental principle of language writing.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...thst is a summary of the overall creation event.

What comes next is the finer details explaining the event.

They are not two separate events.

Enjoy amigo.