Suppose evolution was refuted, then what?

[camanintx]

No, I advocate that true science does support what the Bible teaches. It is the evolutionists that are ignoring evidence that doesn't support their world view, and persecuting anyone who dares raise these inconvenient truths.

Has anyone ever observed a new species appearing out of nowhere, fully formed, with no possible predecessors?

 

[painted wolf]

No, I advocate that true science does support what the Bible teaches.

See how the definition of science changes to "true science" that is, only that which supports my position. In other words, science doesn't actually matter because I will simply dismiss anything that conflicts with my interpretation of the Bible. (and only Rusrua's view of the bible counts as "true")

Science is irrelevant and only the icing on the cake. Rusra will never base their position on science because it doesn't matter to their salvation.
It's just another way to the ultimate goal of suffering for faith. You can't be a good christian and not be persecuted... even if you have to make that persecution up.

It is the evolutionists that are ignoring evidence that doesn't support their world view, and persecuting anyone who dares raise these inconvenient truths.

wa:do

 

[Agnostic75]

I advocate that true science does support what the Bible teaches.

Ok, please visit my thread on the global flood, and make some posts.

 

[johnhanks]

I take it, then, they didn't create the raw components of DNA and then form DNA from these components? They simply took existing DNA and modified it?

No, the DNA is synthesised from off-the-shelf chemicals. Why are you so hung up on this? You asserted some pages back that DNA is "too complex" for human chemists to synthesise; you have been shown to be wrong. End of story.

 

[camanintx]

No, the DNA is synthesised from off-the-shelf chemicals. Why are you so hung up on this? You asserted some pages back that DNA is "too complex" for human chemists to synthesise; you have been shown to be wrong. End of story.

Next rusra02 will be asking if they created the atoms that make up the chemicals.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Fantome is correct.

Then again, refuting the Theory of Evolution is only slightly more likely than refuting the existence of matter.

There are a few points where all it would take is one example to refute the entire theory. Problem is, they haven't been found yet, and likely never will.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

It's just another way to the ultimate goal of suffering for faith. You can't be a good christian and not be persecuted... even if you have to make that persecution up.

Gah! Why on earth you you make up some persecution or suffering for yourself?
There's plenty of it already...all you have to do is look.

Of course, that would require you to actually suffer in the first place. Because you'd have to look at yourself in front of God and say 'who am I'? Trust me, in answering that question, you'll have all the hardships you can handle.

You make a very good point, painted wolf. i hope someday rusra listens to it.

 

[shawn001]

The "big bang" theory doesn't prove or disprove anything. I don't understand why you discussed this.
Show you a fact that proves we didn't evolve? Prove the negative? Show me one fact that proves we were not created.

LOL

I just showed you how the entire universe evolved and then the solar system and earth and then us.

"Show you a fact that proves we didn't evolve?"

I can show you billions we did, but your flat out denying the science or even attemting to understand any of it to begin with that its already a done deal.


"Prove the negative? Show me one fact that proves we were not created"

You have this bakwards, it is you who needs to show a fact for a creator, there isn't one.


EUGENIE C. SCOTT: The fundamental problem with intelligent design is that you can't use it to explain the natural world. It's essentially a negative argument. It says, "Evolution doesn't work, therefore the designer did it. Evolution doesn't work, therefore we win by default."


But when you ask them, "What does intelligent design tell you about nature? Does it tell you what the designer did? Does it tell you what the designer used to design something with? Does it tell you what purpose the designer had for designing something? Does it tell you when the designer did it? Why the designer did it?" It doesn't tell you anything like that. Basically, it's a negative argument. And you can't build a science on a negative argument."

 

[shawn001]

If you broke the evolution process down to a year.

 

[Agnostic75]

If evolution was refuted, I believe that deism would be the best choice for a worldview.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to rusra02: Do you believe that a global flood occurred, and that the earth is young?

 

[Matthew78]

If evolution was refuted, I believe that deism would be the best choice for a worldview.

One can be a deist and an evolutionist. A deist can believe that a divine First Cause started the universe off, left everything to evolve according to physical laws, and then, if it intervened in the course of history, it may have made human beings with souls and given them a innate moral instinct. In fact, when I abandoned Christianity, I became a "deistic evolutionist" and I believed that a divine First Cause not only designed the course of evolution, but had, in fact, designed genes and, possibly, individual alleles. Evolutionary change was intelligently preprogrammed to happen at certain times in earth history.

If purely naturalistic evolution was refuted and it was shown that evolution just had to have an intelligent designer, you're right; that would point to a more hands-on type of intelligent cause who designed the course of evolution. If evolution was completely refuted, then we might find ourselves embracing some odd kind of deistic creationism or, maybe, directed panspermia.

 

[rusra02]

No, the DNA is synthesised from off-the-shelf chemicals. Why are you so hung up on this? You asserted some pages back that DNA is "too complex" for human chemists to synthesise; you have been shown to be wrong. End of story.

Not to belabor the point, but you are saying these scientists took chemicals (off the shelf) and constructed DNA from them? Can you provide a source reference to show this is what they did? Just asking...

 

[rusra02]

Has anyone ever observed a new species appearing out of nowhere, fully formed, with no possible predecessors?

All the animals, fish, and plants were created thousands of years ago. There are no new "kinds" of animals being formed. So no one alive today has observed a new type of animal or plant created, just variations of existing "kinds." Evolutionary paleontologist David Raup said: "what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is,species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record." Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 1/79 p.23.
So, animals and plants appear very suddenly, and show no change during their existence.
Hmm.. what does that sound like to you?

​

​

 

[rusra02]

Message to rusra02: Do you believe that a global flood occurred, and that the earth is young?

I answered that already. Yes to a global flood, No to a young earth. Sorry if I didn't answer it clearly.

 

[McBell]

All the animals, fish, and plants were created thousands of years ago. There are no new "kinds" of animals being formed. So no one alive today has observed a new type of animal or plant created, just variations of existing "kinds." Evolutionary paleontologist David Raup said: "what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is,species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record." Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 1/79 p.23.
So, animals and plants appear very suddenly, and show no change during their existence.
Hmm.. what does that sound like to you?

Sounds like you going to great lengths to avoid answering the question.

 

[PolyHedral]

wa:do

Come see the logic inherent in the system!

 

[painted wolf]

Not to belabor the point, but you are saying these scientists took chemicals (off the shelf) and constructed DNA from them? Can you provide a source reference to show this is what they did? Just asking...

Creating Life From Chemicals | Moving a step closer to creating life - Los Angeles Times

wa:do

 

[johnhanks]

Not to belabor the point...

Not to? What in your view would belaboring the point look like?

... but you are saying these scientists took chemicals (off the shelf) and constructed DNA from them?

Yes.

Can you provide a source reference to show this is what they did? Just asking...

Sources aren't difficult to find. Try this one.

Stitching the synthetic 'cassettes' together into a functioning gene is still done in vivo; but the DNA itself is entirely synthetic.

 

[johnhanks]

All the animals, fish, and plants were created thousands of years ago. There are no new "kinds" of animals being formed. So no one alive today has observed a new type of animal or plant created, just variations of existing "kinds." Evolutionary paleontologist David Raup said: "what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is,species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record." Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 1/79 p.23.

Once again, turn on to p.26 of the same article...

This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred...

... and we see the familiar spectacle of a creationist pretending that a source confirming evolution is in fact refuting it.