The first creature could not have come into being by random chance. It is impossible.

[TagliatelliMonster]

So evolutionist must PROVE your religious dogma.

The phylogenetic tree proves it.
It turns common ancestry of species into a fact.

The theory is the explanation of the process of how it works.
The facts are what they are. Common ancestry of species = genetic fact.

Whatever model you wish to super-impose upon biology - be it evolution or something else - you are going to need to account for the facts of biology.

One of those facts is that species share ancestry.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

The phylogenetic tree proves it.
It turns common ancestry of species into a fact.

The theory is the explanation of the process of how it works.
The facts are what they are. Common ancestry of species = genetic fact.

Whatever model you wish to super-impose upon biology - be it evolution or something else - you are going to need to account for the facts of biology.

One of those facts is that species share ancestry.

You mean the assumption that evolution is true that evolutionists use to claim the assumption that evolution is true.
Common features are explained by a Common Intelligent Creator but inexplicable similarities and differences between species prove common descent is false.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All The evidence proves the flood.

here is some.

Even more Scientific Evidence for a Global Flood-part 3 of series ‹ The Bible Can Be Proven

The evidence does not support a global flood. Those are the facts of it.

What supports the idea of a global flood is the desire of some people to want it to be true.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You mean the assumption that evolution is true that evolutionists use to claim the assumption that evolution is true.
Common features are explained by a Common Intelligent Creator but inexplicable similarities and differences between species prove common descent is false.

Evolution is not assumed. It is based on the evidence and a logical review of it.

The best you can do is make multiple threads saying the same thing over and over in the face of all that evidence that you ignore.

Common descent is the conclusion supported by the body of evidence.

You have to provide a rational alternative to that and not just declare what you believe as the answer.

 

[PureX]

Nothing came to exist via "random chance" because random chance doesn't exist except as a counter cognitive concept to imposed order.

Existence is the fulfillment of a specific set of possibilities. It is not the result of random chance.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Evolution is not assumed. It is based on the evidence and a logical review of it.

The best you can do is make multiple threads saying the same thing over and over in the face of all that evidence that you ignore.

Common descent is the conclusion supported by the body of evidence.

You have to provide a rational alternative to that and not just declare what you believe as the answer.

That evolution and billions of years are true are assumed in all evolutionists thought and reasoning.
Here is it.
We know evolution is true therefore evolution is true.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That evolution and billions of years are true are assumed in all evolutionists thought and reasoning.
Here is it.
We know evolution is true therefore evolution is true.

No. Theories of evolution were conceived long before a knowledge of the age of the Earth and the universe were known.

Those theories and the one we have today are based on evidence.

How do your claims fit those facts.

They don't.

Therefore, your claims have been falsified.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Not all your ancestors were people. Before they were people they were apes.
And before they were apes, they were mammals.
And before they were mammals, they were tetrapods.
And before they were tetrapods, they were vertebrates.

And humans today still are apes, mammals, tetrapods and vertebrates.
So, every createure that ever lived, only produced more of its "kind".
No member of any species ever gave birth to a member of another species.
Yet not all your ancestors were humans.

Chew on that.

Well said.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You mean the assumption that evolution is true that evolutionists use to claim the assumption that evolution is true.

No.
I have just explained it to you.
Read it again.

Common ancestry of species is a genetic fact. Evolution theory is an explanatory model that explains said fact.
If evolution theory turns out incorrect, the fact still are what they are.
You're simply going to need a model other then evolution to explain those facts.

Common features are explained by a Common Intelligent Creator but inexplicable similarities and differences between species prove common descent is false.

"common features" is not what makes common ancestry of species a fact.

The shape of the tree does. Which is to say, the nested hierarchy. The pattern of distribution of genetic matches.
Just like how a DNA test can demonstrate that supposed your sister is your biological sibling or not.

I'm sorry you are too obtuse to let the facts of genetics sink in.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nothing came to exist via "random chance" because random chance doesn't exist except as a counter cognitive concept to imposed order.

Existence is the fulfillment of a specific set of possibilities. It is not the result of random chance.

A poker hand, any pokerhand, is the "fulfillment of a specific set of possibilities".
But being dealt a royal flush still is a matter of probability. Aka, chance.
And depending on the shuffle mechanism, random chance.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No.
I have just explained it to you.
Read it again.

Common ancestry of species is a genetic fact. Evolution theory is an explanatory model that explains said fact.
If evolution theory turns out incorrect, the fact still are what they are.
You're simply going to need a model other then evolution to explain those facts.


"common features" is not what makes common ancestry of species a fact.

The shape of the tree does. Which is to say, the nested hierarchy. The pattern of distribution of genetic matches.
Just like how a DNA test can demonstrate that supposed your sister is your biological sibling or not.

I'm sorry you are too obtuse to let the facts of genetics sink in.

it is not a genetic fact as macro evolution has never been observed and is genetically impossible.

 

[PureX]

A poker hand, any pokerhand, is the "fulfillment of a specific set of possibilities".
But being dealt a royal flush still is a matter of probability. Aka, chance.
And depending on the shuffle mechanism, random chance.

You are confusing our human inability to cognate subtle, complex organization with "random chance". What little actual chance is involved is very subtle and very slight. It can only occur when a very precise balance of causation happens. And that very rarely happens.

Think of a marble clattering down an inclined plane filled with protruding pegs. We will think it's course through the pegs is "random chance", but in fact it's being completely dictated by a very common set of causes, and could be easily and accurately predicted as a result. The only way chance ever would occur would be if the marble encountered a peg at just such a precise speed and angle that the factors that would dictate that it fall to the right or left of the peg are so exactly equal that they become negligible. Meaning that they are ineffectual in causing the marble to fall to either side. Yet it falls, anyway.

Many would argue that such a condition cannot ever really happen, as there would always be some lesser causation to come into play. These people are called 'determinists'. For them, there no such thing as 'chance'. I disagree, but I recognize that chance is actually a very rare condition.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

it is not a genetic fact as macro evolution has never been observed and is genetically impossible.

An unsubstantiated claim suffering alone in the dark, since you offer it no real support.

I hate to see claims so abused.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

An unsubstantiated claim suffering alone in the dark, since you offer it no real support.

I hate to see claims so abused.

There are many millions that believe in 6 day recent creation.
And all the evidence is against billions of years and evolution.

 

[McBell]

There are many millions that believe in 6 day recent creation.

the number of people believing something has absolutely no bearing on the truth, or lack of truth, of that which is believed.
Examples being:

Flat Earth​

Poisonous tomatoes​

spontaneous generation​

Earth revolving around the sun.​

Evil spirits causing sickness.​

​

And all the evidence is against billions of years and evolution.

Nope.
Not even close.

 

[muhammad_isa]

There are many millions that believe in 6 day recent creation..

It doesn't really mean anything .. "recent creation" ..

Who cares 'when and how' G-d created the universe?
It is the belief that He did (create the universe), that interests me.

Most 'scientific facts' really ARE facts i.e. they are true

The "devil is in the details".

eg. a day is as a 1000 years to G-d Almighty

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

it is not a genetic fact

It is a genetic fact as much as a DNA test can determine that your sister is your actual biological sister.

as macro evolution has never been observed and is genetically impossible.

Evolution is the explanatory model that accounts for the facts.
If evolution is shown incorrect, the facts of genetics still stand.

DNA allows us to determine relationships between individuals.
This is how we know if you are closely or distantly related.

I am more closely related to my sister then to you.
I am more closely related to you then to a chimp.
I am more closely related to a chimp then to a gorilla.
etc.

DNA is what it is, regardless of which model you favour to account for it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are confusing our human inability to cognate subtle, complex organization with "random chance". What little actual chance is involved is very subtle and very slight. It can only occur when a very precise balance of causation happens. And that very rarely happens.

Think of a marble clattering down an inclined plane filled with protruding pegs. We will think it's course through the pegs is "random chance", but in fact it's being completely dictated by a very common set of causes, and could be easily and accurately predicted as a result. The only way chance ever would occur would be if the marble encountered a peg at just such a precise speed and angle that the factors that would dictate that it fall to the right or left of the peg are so exactly equal that they become negligible. Meaning that they are ineffectual in causing the marble to fall to either side. Yet it falls, anyway.

Many would argue that such a condition cannot ever really happen, as there would always be some lesser causation to come into play. These people are called 'determinists'. For them, there no such thing as 'chance'. I disagree, but I recognize that chance is actually a very rare condition.

Yes, a master shuffler would theoretically be able to stack the deck and make sure you are dealt a royal flush every time.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

It is a genetic fact as much as a DNA test can determine that your sister is your actual biological sister.


Evolution is the explanatory model that accounts for the facts.
If evolution is shown incorrect, the facts of genetics still stand.

DNA allows us to determine relationships between individuals.
This is how we know if you are closely or distantly related.

I am more closely related to my sister then to you.
I am more closely related to you then to a chimp.
I am more closely related to a chimp then to a gorilla.
etc.

DNA is what it is, regardless of which model you favour to account for it.

And yet not descended from any primate.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There are many millions that believe in 6 day recent creation.

That is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad populum.

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

And all the evidence is against billions of years and evolution.

The evidence is not. A list of out of context and inane questions and declarations of victory is not evidence of anything except hubris and confusion as I see it.