I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution
#21
(09-29-2018, 11:12 AM)jack89 Wrote: [quote pid='1386853' dateline='1538177461']
ParadosiakosI don’t believe in the evolution theory where humans came from apes or fish or some single celled.organism. If we did then we should be all that exists. Evolution is supposed to be something where the lesser creature evolves into something higher and that the lesser creature would become extinct. So if we came from apes why are they still around?

Your understanding of evolution is incorrect.  Evolution is simply change in a species over time.  It's not necessarily a matter of lesser or higher creatures, it has more to do with adaptation to environment over generations, or selective breeding because of a desirable trait, or because of a slew of other factors.  Even when you have groups of the same species isolated from each other over many generations, those groups will change.  Not necessarily better, but different, and often better suited to their unique environment. 

And the theory doesn't claim we came from apes or fish, but that we share the same ancestors from millions of years ago who branched and changed in different ways.  That's why there are so many different species.

The reason that I think evolutionary theory is likely correct, to a certain degree, is that I can see with my own eyes how people are different from each other, and people in isolated areas tend to share similar traits.  But if two isolated groups come together and procreate with each other for many generations their distinctions blur and you achieve a new norm. This happens with insects and animals as well.  Imagine that dynamic over thousands or even millions of years.
[/quote]

Biblical Creation- Natural Selection and Speciation


“What Darwin really accounted for was not the origin, but the extermination of species.”
-C.S Lewis


I am a biblical creationist I believe everything was created to reproduce after its own kind, dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats etc There is alot of variety in these animals so that a dog, coyote, and wolf have a common ancestor, but it was from the original dog kind, they have know varied and produce the many kinds today. But all the information was already present the variation we see in animals today was already present in the original producing kind.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...-evolution
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-c...-evolution
https://creation.com/variation-informati...eated-kind


[Image: dog-fur.jpg] [Image: cold-hot-dog-fur.jpg]


So in the above picture on the left we see how variation can lead to genetic change in a population. The original created pair of dogs had the genes for both Long [L] and short fur [S]. They produced a variety in their offspring where some received only Long fur genes and some only short fur genes. This is a very basic example of how variation within the kind that eventually leads to speaciation [dog, wolf, coyote] happens. The picture on the right is an example of this. The original dog kid's descendants spreads out over various terrain and those with short fur survive better than those with longer fur in the hotter climate and natural selection favors those with short fur and the long fur die out. In the north the long fur have the advantage and the short fur die out. But all the original information to produce the genes for long fur and short fur are already present in the original biblical kind.



“natural selection is therefore likely to be important in evolution. However, natural selection does not explain the origin of new variants, only the process of changes in their frequency....But evolution is more than merely a change in trait distributions or allele frequencies; it also includes the origin of the variation.... Natural selection only affects changes in the frequency of the variants once they appear; it cannot directly address the reasons for the existence of the variants.” --Endler, John A., Natural Selection in the Wild, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, USA, 1986



Biblical Kind



 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. ...24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
-Genesis 1

The bible says God created life to reproduce after its own kind. God created various separate distinct kinds [not species] of animals. So a wolf coyote and dog shared a common ancestor. Today we often use the term species for multiple animals within the same biblical kind. For example a camel and a llama can breed. A Lynx and a bobcat, yak and cow, lion and tiger, leopard and jaguar, dingo and dog, coyote and dog, gray wolf and coyote, killer whale and bottle nose dolphin, a zebra and donkey, a zebra and horse and on and on. Because these species all originated from the original biblical kind God created they can still interbreed. They have since diversified but all the potential for change was within the original kind God created.



[Image: cat-kind-chart.gif]






Biblical Creation and Mutations



Mutations happen but all observation and experimentation shows they work against evolution. Mutations reduce information in an organism they do not build up. See http://creation.com/the-evolution-trains-a-comin

It really is in my opinion the best argument for creation and the best refuter of evolution. Evolution needs to increase complexity over time through mutations, yet all observation shows the opposite. Take the example above of antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic-resistant H. pylori have a mutation that results in the loss of information to produce an enzyme. This enzyme normally converts an antibiotic to a poison, which causes death. But when the antibiotics are applied to the mutant H. pylori, these bacteria can live while the normal bacteria are killed. So by natural selection the ones that lost information survive and pass this trait along to their offspring. This process cannot exspalin the origin of the enzyme.

“Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome . This surly shows that there are not the millions upon millions of potential mutations the theory evolution demands.”
-L.spetner not by chance 1997


Some mutations are beneficial such as the above, or a insect on a island that has a mutation so it does not produce wings, know lives while the others that did not have the mutation die off, so know this insect with the new mutation lives and passes on its genes till the whole island is know mutated wingless insects. Yet this is the wrong kind of change for evolution [reduced destroying] yer constant with biblical creation.
Reply
#22
(10-08-2018, 11:20 AM)nolte Wrote:
(10-01-2018, 01:51 PM)cassini Wrote: Excellent scholarly rebuttal of evolution 1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont.
Evolution is nonsense, simple nonsense, unworthy of such a dismissal.

That Catholics would prefer this evolution nonsense to a simple act of faith in ex nihilo creation that God gave us in Genesis is hard to fathom.

Creation was a supernatural act of God, all done in six days. On the seventh day he rested, that is the supernatural creation was complete and from then on the natural order began.

Evolution was/is Satan's way to eliminate God's part in creation and replace the ex nihilo act of God with a story of natural evolution. Research has shown this worked and billions of souls were lost because of it.

Can you point out the "scholarship"?

Did you miss my exposure of 1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont's dishonesty and use of dishonest sources?

Seems that doesn't matter when you have you head in some ancient middle eastern tall tales.. Anything goes!

Hosea 13:16


I would be very interested in your showing my "dishonesty and use of dishonest sources" it seemed more you missing the point and twisting my purposes.
Reply
#23
(12-20-2018, 06:25 PM)Tolkien RRJ Wrote:
(10-08-2018, 11:20 AM)nolte Wrote:
(10-01-2018, 01:51 PM)cassini Wrote: Excellent scholarly rebuttal of evolution 1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont.
Evolution is nonsense, simple nonsense, unworthy of such a dismissal.

That Catholics would prefer this evolution nonsense to a simple act of faith in ex nihilo creation that God gave us in Genesis is hard to fathom.

Creation was a supernatural act of God, all done in six days. On the seventh day he rested, that is the supernatural creation was complete and from then on the natural order began.

Evolution was/is Satan's way to eliminate God's part in creation and replace the ex nihilo act of God with a story of natural evolution. Research has shown this worked and billions of souls were lost because of it.

Can you point out the "scholarship"?

Did you miss my exposure of 1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont's dishonesty and use of dishonest sources?

Seems that doesn't matter when you have you head in some ancient middle eastern tall tales.. Anything goes!

Hosea 13:16


I would be very interested in your showing my "dishonesty and use of dishonest sources" it seemed more you missing the point and twisting my purposes.

I already did.  You ignore it because that is what creationists do.  How many bungled or doctored quotes does one need to document before your spam-trolling is dismissed as propaganda?
Reply
#24
(12-20-2018, 06:24 PM)Tolkien RRJ Wrote: But all the information was already present the variation we see in animals today was already present in the original producing kind.
Evidence please.
Reply
#25
(10-01-2018, 01:51 PM)cassini Wrote: Excellent scholarly rebuttal of evolution

Wow, I guess some people have very different ideas regarding just what "scholarly" means.
[-] The following 1 user Likes nolte's post:
  • Tolkien RRJ
Reply
#26
(10-02-2018, 10:08 AM)Paul Wrote: . That requires new, additional genetic information, and the evolutionists have yet to show that that's possible. Most mutations are fatal, and the rates of the non-fatal ones are far too low even with millions of years, and this gradual change is not what we see in the fossil record.

Where do you get your genetics information from?  Most mutations are NOT fatal, not even close.

And do tell us all about this "genetic information" - what do you mean, in a biologically relevant sense?  I'm betting that is just parroted  propaganda from some creationist website.  Yes?
Reply
#27
(05-02-2019, 06:56 AM)Paver Wrote: In fact, evolution is a rather controversial phenomenon. Since even if we consider the opinion that humans evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys and they have not become humans? This is a very controversial issue. If, however, to make changes in the genetic background of monkeys by scientific experiments and at the same time they will look like people, then this is a mutation, not an evolution. When I was studying in Canada, one of my favorite teachers shared very interesting information from the view site, where many interesting and convincing thoughts were described. I needed this information to write my assignment, with which the best online service helped me. And this stuff made me think seriously.

Nobody thinks humans evolved from monkeys.  Not a single evolutionist.  The only people who think that is an argument are the disingenuous creationists who keep hoisting that strawman onto their processional staff as if it's some kind of smoking gun, marching like the knights of Byzantium on their crusade against evolution.

NO ONE who subscribes to evolution is of the opinion that humans evolved from monkeys.
Reply
#28
(04-26-2019, 02:58 PM)nolte Wrote:
(12-20-2018, 06:25 PM)Tolkien RRJ Wrote:
(10-08-2018, 11:20 AM)nolte Wrote:
(10-01-2018, 01:51 PM)cassini Wrote: Excellent scholarly rebuttal of evolution 1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont.
Evolution is nonsense, simple nonsense, unworthy of such a dismissal.

That Catholics would prefer this evolution nonsense to a simple act of faith in ex nihilo creation that God gave us in Genesis is hard to fathom.

Creation was a supernatural act of God, all done in six days. On the seventh day he rested, that is the supernatural creation was complete and from then on the natural order began.

Evolution was/is Satan's way to eliminate God's part in creation and replace the ex nihilo act of God with a story of natural evolution. Research has shown this worked and billions of souls were lost because of it.

Can you point out the "scholarship"?

Did you miss my exposure of 1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont's dishonesty and use of dishonest sources?

Seems that doesn't matter when you have you head in some ancient middle eastern tall tales.. Anything goes!

Hosea 13:16


I would be very interested in your showing my "dishonesty and use of dishonest sources" it seemed more you missing the point and twisting my purposes.

I already did.  You ignore it because that is what creationists do.  How many bungled or doctored quotes does one need to document before your spam-trolling is dismissed as propaganda?




I am sure your being honest here telling me what creationist do [glad to know since I did not know that] , but rather it seems to me, you cant help but not support your claims. Go ahead I will wait. You have added a few more claims needing support.
Reply
#29
(04-26-2019, 02:59 PM)nolte Wrote:
(12-20-2018, 06:24 PM)Tolkien RRJ Wrote: But all the information was already present the variation we see in animals today was already present in the original producing kind.
Evidence please.


All you need do is show one contrary exsample. Take any exsample you like I will show how the information was already present.
Reply
#30
(04-26-2019, 03:03 PM)nolte Wrote:
(10-02-2018, 10:08 AM)Paul Wrote: . That requires new, additional genetic information, and the evolutionists have yet to show that that's possible. Most mutations are fatal, and the rates of the non-fatal ones are far too low even with millions of years, and this gradual change is not what we see in the fossil record.

Where do you get your genetics information from?  Most mutations are NOT fatal, not even close.

And do tell us all about this "genetic information" - what do you mean, in a biologically relevant sense?  I'm betting that is just parroted  propaganda from some creationist website.  Yes?

I might be able to help here. I think he might have said most are degrading, destroying information but maybe not lethal. 


As for denfintion of information I believe I went into detail on this for anyone interested. But lets make it simple, can you give one example of a mutation that can justify the belief that mutations can account for proteins, genes, the genetic code? we are not looking for an arm or something simply any gene or enzyme will do.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)