Why I believe God Created Life.

[rusra02]

It is still nothing more than wishful thinking.

I believe it is wishful thinking to believe the historical God of the Bible doesn't exist, or that his word can be dismissed. (Psalm 10:4)

 

[starless]

The fruit fly experiment is very well documented and has been replicated many times.
The experiment was able to produce two groups of flies that were reproductively isolated, after only 35 generations:

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

There are similar experiments in artificial speciation, as well as numerous documented and studied examples of natural speciation within our lifetime. The process is as well proven as the fact that the Earth orbits the Sun. I understand it's easier to just have some scripture piped into your head, but the evidence is out there and it takes little effort to study it.

 

[McBell]

I believe it is wishful thinking to believe the historical God of the Bible doesn't exist, or that his word can be dismissed. (Psalm 10:4)

The Bible can be dismissed simply because the deity of the Bible does not enforce the Bible.

 

[Bunyip]

You have not identified your source for your claims. But taking what you claim at face value, if there are 150k types of fly that cannot interbreed, then so be it. I am confident there are many kinds of fish and amphibians that likewise cannot interbreed. That is not the same thing as producing a viable fruit fly that cannot interbreed with other sibling fruit flies but can interbreed with "new species" fruit flies.

So what? New viable fruit fly species have been demonstrated to emerge, they are fertile and viable - but are no longer cross fertile with the original.

Exactly according to your definitions, it is a perfect,observed instance of macro evolution.

 

[Parsimony]

That is not the same thing as producing a viable fruit fly that cannot interbreed with other sibling fruit flies but can interbreed with "new species" fruit flies.

So for clarification, your definition of macro-evolution would be the divergence of one species into two species which are not cross-fertile? Am I understanding that right?

 

[rusra02]

The fruit fly experiment is very well documented and has been replicated many times.
The experiment was able to produce two groups of flies that were reproductively isolated, after only 35 generations:

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

There are similar experiments in artificial speciation, as well as numerous documented and studied examples of natural speciation within our lifetime. The process is as well proven as the fact that the Earth orbits the Sun. I understand it's easier to just have some scripture piped into your head, but the evidence is out there and it takes little effort to study it.

The article you referenced did not state the insects could not interbreed.

 

[rusra02]

The Bible can be dismissed simply because the deity of the Bible does not enforce the Bible.

Because a government does not immediately take action against those breaking the laws of that government does not mean the government does not exist. The Bible says that God has a set time to end all opposition to his Kingdom rule. Meanwhile, I believe it is as 2 Peter 3:9,10 states: "he is patient with you because he does not desire anyone to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance. But Jehovah’s day will come."

 

[rusra02]

So for clarification, your definition of macro-evolution would be the divergence of one species into two species which are not cross-fertile? Am I understanding that right?

No, you are not understanding that right. Not at all. I was stating what a Biblical kind appears to be. My earlier post said, in part:
"This quote shows the relationship of species to kinds: "The Biblical “kinds” seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary between “kinds” is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur....
Macro evolution's claim that all life forms "evolved" from one family or kind to another is demonstrably false. What evolutionists call speciation is nothing more than the variety that God created in living things."

 

[starless]

The article you referenced did not state the insects could not interbreed.

What? Of course it DOES! Did you even read anything? Here, I will retype it for you from the paper's abstract:

"A 35-generation experiment using a complex habitat maze led to complete reproductive isolation between subpopulations using different spatiotemporal habitats. The reproductive isolation that developed over the course of the experiment was a result of offspring returning to mate in the habitat type selected by their parents."

Let me also define "reproductive isolation" before you can inject your own interpretation and then strawman it:

"Reproductive isolation is the collection of mechanisms, behaviors and physiological processes, that prevent the members of two different species that cross or mate from producing offspring, or which ensure that any offspring that may be produced is not fertile."

 

[Parsimony]

No, you are not understanding that right. Not at all. I was stating what a Biblical kind appears to be. My earlier post said, in part:
"This quote shows the relationship of species to kinds: "The Biblical “kinds” seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary between “kinds” is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur....
Macro evolution's claim that all life forms "evolved" from one family or kind to another is demonstrably false. What evolutionists call speciation is nothing more than the variety that God created in living things."

Wouldn't that be the same thing? If the line betweens kinds is "to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur", and macro-evolution represents a creation of new kinds, then would not the minimum requirement for macro-evolution, according to your definition, be the evolution of a new species which cannot interbreed with its parent species?

 

[Gordian Knot]

I believe it is wishful thinking to believe the historical God of the Bible doesn't exist, or that his word can be dismissed. (Psalm 10:4)

Your statement fails on the first two words "I believe". A personal belief is proof of nothing. Are you entitled to your belief? Of course you are. To use your personal belief as proof of anything more than that, though, is invalid.

 

[rusra02]

What? Of course it DOES! Did you even read anything? Here, I will retype it for you from the paper's abstract:

"A 35-generation experiment using a complex habitat maze led to complete reproductive isolation between subpopulations using different spatiotemporal habitats. The reproductive isolation that developed over the course of the experiment was a result of offspring returning to mate in the habitat type selected by their parents."

Let me also define "reproductive isolation" before you can inject your own interpretation and then strawman it:

"Reproductive isolation is the collection of mechanisms, behaviors and physiological processes, that prevent the members of two different species that cross or mate from producing offspring, or which ensure that any offspring that may be produced is not fertile."

So they can reproduce, but choose not to, due to "mechanisms, behaviors and physiological processes? The fact that they produce sterile offspring would indicate mating, no?

 

[Desert Snake]

Your statement fails on the first two words "I believe". A personal belief is proof of nothing. Are you entitled to your belief? Of course you are. To use your personal belief as proof of anything more than that, though, is invalid.

Not much of a valid argument..one can say "I believe in evolution" and have no idea about science, or not believe the theory in totality etc.
Strawman, basically.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Everyone sure does like to throw around that Strawman term. As if that adds some relevance to the discussion.

In point of fact I would not say "I believe in evolution" as a proof. That statement is indeed my opinion. Rather I would say "Evolution is fact". Because it has been tested and retested with similar results so many times anyone capable of cognitive thinking would accept that logic.

The difference is someone being aware of the scientific process that proves evolution is fact. To say "Evolution is fact" blindly without any knowledge of how we know that is indeed a pointless statement.

 

[starless]

So they can reproduce, but choose not to, due to "mechanisms, behaviors and physiological processes? The fact that they produce sterile offspring would indicate mating, no?

There is no "choosing" in animals and evolution.

There are however different types of of reproductive isolating mechanisms observed in fruit flies, such as gametic isolation (female eggs cannot be fertilized), ethological isolation (lack of attraction and mating), hybrid inviability (offspring are not viable) and hybrid sterility (offspring are sterile), which all lead to the same thing, e.g. speciation.

In any case interbreeding capabilities have nothing to do with species differentiation. Many species of animal interbreed.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

"why I believe god created life"
..."because I really really want to."

...now could you start a post titled "why I find science very scary" we could continue this thread in more appropriately?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I believe it has always been evolutionist tactics to make personal attacks on those who reject the ToE. Heaven forbid that someone publicly exposes the fallacies that fill the theory, much less that someone would quote such honest remarks and make them more widely known. Such personal attacks have been documented online for those interested in the truth.
As to the evidence, the evidence for creation is overwhelming, IMO. For example, biochemist and professor Michael Behe stated:"Science has now advanced enough to have uncovered the foundation level of life. And much to our surprise, scientists have found functional, complex machinery at the molecular level of life. For instance, within living cells there are little molecular “trucks” that carry supplies from one side of the cell to the other. There are tiny molecular “sign posts” that tell these “trucks” to turn left or right. Some cells have molecular “outboard motors” that propel the cells through liquid. In any other context, when such functional complexity is evident, people would conclude that these things were designed. We have no other explanation for this complexity, claims of Darwinian evolution notwithstanding. Since it’s been our uniform experience that this sort of arrangement bespeaks design, we are justified in thinking that these molecular systems were also intelligently designed."
Similar evidence refutes the claimed machinery of evolution, such as mutations and so-called natural selection, could produce the stunning variety of designs evident in living things. Bluster and personal attacks seem to be all that remain to support this failing theory of evolution.

Try to explain it away all you like, I'm just calling it like I see it. Quote mining is a dishonest tactic. Period. You are not exposing fallacies "that fill the theory," rather you are making a fallacious argument by misrepresenting people's words. That is the reason quote mining needs to be exposed for what it is. You are not helping yourself (or your arguments) by using such a tactic.

And by the way, Behe's "work" on irreducible complexity has been thoroughly refuted.

Evolution is one of the most well-evidenced scientific theories in existence. It explains very well the stunning variety of living organisms currently in existence. In fact, it is the only existing scientific theory that does so.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Trying to reconcile what the Bible teaches as historical fact, and what evolution claims is futile, IMO. Trying to discredit the Bible's historical accuracy by claiming it is allegory is likewise futile. The Bible provides a consistent and coherent history of God's dealings with mankind; in fact, the only consistent, coherent history that reaches back to mankind's start. Time and again, critics of the Bible's historicity have had to retreat as new discoveries confirmed the Bible's historical correctness. I believe it is as Romans 3:3,4 expresses:"What, then, is the case? If some lacked faith, will their lack of faith invalidate the faithfulness of God? *Certainly not! But let God be found true, even if every man be found a liar, just as it is written: “That you might be proved righteous in your words and might win when you are being judged.”"

Like what?

 

[Bunyip]

So they can reproduce, but choose not to, due to "mechanisms, behaviors and physiological processes? The fact that they produce sterile offspring would indicate mating, no?

Sure, and of course the fact that they produced infertile offspring means that macro evolution has taken place. If they can not produce fertile offspring - then they are two different 'kinds' according to your definition.

One kind of fruit fly evolving into two groups of fruit fly that are no longer cross fertile IS macro evolution - acdording to your definition correct?

 

[McBell]

Because a government does not immediately take action against those breaking the laws of that government does not mean the government does not exist.

I never said anything about existence, that is your strawman.
I said the Biblical deity can be dismissed.

The Bible says that God has a set time to end all opposition to his Kingdom rule. Meanwhile, I believe it is as 2 Peter 3:9,10 states: "he is patient with you because he does not desire anyone to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance. But Jehovah’s day will come."

Perhaps you do not understand when I say the Bible and its deity have been dismissed?