Belief in Evolutionism debunked by former evolutionist

[Thinkingstuff]

Speak of biological evolution. Evolution among the animals--half man; half ape. If evolution actually did take place there would be evidence of it today, and evidence of it taking place today. But quite frankly there is none.

You're still ignoring the phylogenetic tree and using modern evolution equivolents.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Animals very well could have been vegetarians, and would have adapted to eat meat after the Garden was closed. We see in Revelation that in Christ's Earthly reign they will be once again. God said man could eat any fruit, save for the one forbidden. Eating the fruit of a tree doesn't kill the tree. The Bible says there was no death before sin. There are serious implications casting doubt on his word. If I were you, I'd trust it, over my own understanding.

 

[DHK]

You're still ignoring the phylogenetic tree and using modern evolution equivolents.

I am not speaking of trees. I am speaking of the animal kingdom and of man. Therefore you are the one that is dodging my question. Where do we see evidence of evolution today such as half man and half ape, taking place today? Point to it.

 

[Revmitchell]

Adaptation is very much evolution and a specific aspect of evolution. Primarily Natural Selection. By the way interpreting an aspect of scritpure differently than you is not denying scipture. Do you believe that Jesus is speaking about eating his flesh in John 6? I mean it seems pretty literal there. If you don't then your deny scripture. Thats the same argument you're attempting use here.

We have to be specific when we use the word evolution. Adaptation or natural selection is evolution but it is not speciation. We do not need to be talking past each other just to prove a point. Speciation is not possible natural selection is. And one does not lead to the other beyond all doubt.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I am not speaking of trees. I am speaking of the animal kingdom and of man. Therefore you are the one that is dodging my question. Where do we see evidence of evolution today such as half man and half ape, taking place today? Point to it.

Neither am I man did not evolve from the ape. The "tree" which I specified is not a plant.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

We have to be specific when we use the word evolution. Adaptation or natural selection is evolution but it is not speciation. We do not need to be talking past each other just to prove a point. Speciation is not possible natural selection is. And one does not lead to the other beyond all doubt.

You don't see "speciation" because 10,000 years of poorly kept records is not enough time to see it. Now if humanity is around for the next 250 million years and records are maintained then you may have a point. However, I assert that you probably will in that time period see evolution as the evolutionist sees it.

 

[DHK]

We have to be specific when we use the word evolution. Adaptation or natural selection is evolution but it is not speciation. We do not need to be talking past each other just to prove a point. Speciation is not possible natural selection is. And one does not lead to the other beyond all doubt.

I beg to differ. The theory of evolution began with Darwin. Long before that Jacob used the process of natural selection to produce stronger sheep. He knew the mechanics of breeding; what we would today call genetics. This has nothing to do with evolution.
Adaptation has nothing to do with evolution either. Some evolutionists think it does but they are wrong. Man adapts to his environment. The Bible says that we are "fearfully and wonderfully made." He has made the human body very versatile, so that a person like me, being raised in the far northern parts of Canada living in temperatures of minus 40 could be a missionary and adapt to a nation where temperatures reach 120. Adaptation does not mean that if I stay in the water long enough, swim often enough, that my feet (over a period of time) will eventually become webbed like a duck.

 

[Johnv]

This is completely a sidenote. If there was no physical death before Adam, then how does one reconcile Genesis 3:22 when God says "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever". That verse indicates that physical death was not exclusive to a post-sin environment. A post-sin physical death model would seem to downplay the importance of the tree of life, especially given the stress of "he must not be allowed to live forever". This verse actually supports what NT Christian generally accept: that Adam sin imposed a new death penalty, that is, the penalty of spiritual damnation.

 

[Revmitchell]

I beg to differ. The theory of evolution began with Darwin. Long before that Jacob used the process of natural selection to produce stronger sheep. He knew the mechanics of breeding; what we would today call genetics. This has nothing to do with evolution.
Adaptation has nothing to do with evolution either. Some evolutionists think it does but they are wrong. Man adapts to his environment. The Bible says that we are "fearfully and wonderfully made." He has made the human body very versatile, so that a person like me, being raised in the far northern parts of Canada living in temperatures of minus 40 could be a missionary and adapt to a nation where temperatures reach 120. Adaptation does not mean that if I stay in the water long enough, swim often enough, that my feet (over a period of time) will eventually become webbed like a duck.

You seem to be afraid of the word "evolution" and it is not reasonable. Natural selection or another phrase adaptation is classified under evolution. When we take up the wrong arguments in order to defend against a lie we lose credibility.

Natural Selection is also known as Micro-evolution, speciation is known as Macro-evolution. Natural Selection is a result of cirucmstances and dormant DNA. But Speciation is not possible because DNA does not come out of thin air as a result or circumstances nor does it mutate into a completely different type of DNA. It does mutate into a similar DNA but mutation is always negative and works to destroy.

Time effecting mutation in the positive creating a completely different Creation is pure speculation with no fossil or linking data to support it. So as a result they reason away the fossil links.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Animals very well could have been vegetarians, and would have adapted to eat meat after the Garden was closed. We see in Revelation that in Christ's Earthly reign they will be once again. God said man could eat any fruit, save for the one forbidden. Eating the fruit of a tree doesn't kill the tree. The Bible says there was no death before sin. There are serious implications casting doubt on his word. If I were you, I'd trust it, over my own understanding.

There is no indicators in carnivorous animals that they are able to survive of vegitation. However, fruit is not the only type of food source for herbavours. Grass and Leaves are eaten as well. We see elephants of today tearing up trees and "killing" them to get at leaves. So your assertion there is wrong. The bible says there was no death. Physical or Spritual. I think it means spiritual.

 

[Johnv]

You seem to be afraid of the word "evolution" and it is not reasonable. Natural selection or another phrase adaptation is classified under evolution. When we take up the wrong arguments in order to defend against a lie we lose credibility.

Regardless of one's personal view on the topic, Revmitchell speaks wisely here. It's important to understand what is being spoken of when referring to the topic of evolution. I comment Revmitchell for this observation, and concur with it.

speciation is known as Macro-evolution

To be a little more specific, microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes, usually over a few generations, below the species level. There is no argument that microevolution happens (although some creationists still deny it, such as Timothy Wallace). Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera (plural for genus), etc. New species have been observed (speciation). New genera have not been observed. It has been a common argument for creationists that speciation has not been observed, but that is no longer the case. In order for creationists to be consistent, the argument should be that the development of new genera is not possible, and that speciation still falls within the scope of microevolution. Foster the argument that microevolution is impossible, or that speciation is unobserved, causes credibility issues in the creationst argument.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

That's what the serpent said. "Ye shall not surely die"...

The truth is we have no idea what happened in the Garden. You are limiting God, putting him in a box. The lion survived the same way he will survive during Christ's 1000 year reign. I'm guessing there's a good chance you don't believe that, either.

 

[Revmitchell]

This is completely a sidenote. If there was no physical death before Adam, then how does one reconcile Genesis 3:22 when God says "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever". That verse indicates that physical death was not exclusive to a post-sin environment. A post-sin physical death model would seem to downplay the importance of the tree of life, especially given the stress of "he must not be allowed to live forever". This verse actually supports what NT Christian generally accept: that Adam sin imposed a new death penalty, that is, the penalty of spiritual damnation.

It indicates nothing of the sort and you have play mental gymnastics to get there. Silly

 

[Revmitchell]

There is no indicators in carnivorous animals that they are able to survive of vegitation.

Natural Selection alive and well. Be careful of your arguments lest you discredit other foundations of your position.

 

[DHK]

You seem to be afraid of the word "evolution" and it is not reasonable. Natural selection or another phrase adaptation is classified under evolution. When we take up the wrong arguments in order to defend against a lie we lose credibility.

Changing the meaning of words to prop up "scientism" (science falsely so-called) is what I am against. I am not against true science. Natural selection is true science. Jacob used it long ago. It is not evolution; has nothing to do with evolution. However Darwin used the term in relation to his theory of evolution, something that has remained a theory to this day. Here is how it goes according to Darwin:

According to Darwin's theory, young organisms might differ from their parents in every direction; and more young are produced than the habitat can support. Individuals struggle against others to exist, only the fittest survive, and the characteristics of the survivors are passed on to the next generation. As a result of this process, repeated for many generations, the form of the organisms changes and news species arise.

Darwin would have explained the giraffe's long neck as follows: In each generation of giraffes the lengths of the necks would vary slightly. Those with longer necks would be able to reach higher for leaves. In the struggle for existence the giraffes with the shorter necks would be less vigorous and thus produce fewer offspring because they could not get as much food as the animals with longer necks. The animals with longer necks would pass their traits on to their offspring, which would have longer necks than the previous generation. Long necks would have been such an advantage that the short-necked giraffes would eventually be eliminated Natural selection would eventually result in greatly increased neck lengths.

(From BIOLOGY: A Search for Order in Complexity. CRS [a grade 10 high school text] )

This is not natural selection. Natural selection is a scientific process in and of itself. The evolutionist wrongly uses and redefines the term for his own predetermined hypotheses. This is not science. This is not natural selection by the farthest stretch of the imagination. There are still giraffes with relatively short necks. It is a matter of genetics--genes which are inherited from generation to generation; just as there are tribes of pygmies in Africa. Genes are inherited. This is not natural selection.

There is nothing here to discuss if you are going to redefine terms to fit the evolutionary theories.

 

[Johnv]

That's what the serpent said. "Ye shall not surely die"...

To the verse in question, God expressly states that he does not want man to live forever, and that appears to be true prior to the fall. To your comment, that's a bit insulting. I was expecting a little more in the area of respectful conversation when engaging in open discussions with fellow believers, especially given that this is not a doctrinal issue, but an issue within the scope of liberty, a core Baptist Distinctive.

The truth is we have no idea what happened in the Garden. You are limiting God, putting him in a box.

By that reckoning, any insistance on any specific view of Genesis has the potential to limit God.

The lion survived the same way he will survive during Christ's 1000 year reign. I'm guessing there's a good chance you don't believe that, either.

Let's insult the brethren some more. There are numerous threads on this board with debates on whether it's a literal or figurative 1000 year reign, and whether a rapture will occur, during, or after it. Feel free to go there and insult them if you wish.

 

[billwald]

>This is not natural selection. Natural selection is a scientific process in and of itself.

And your concept of ns IS?????

 

[Bro. Curtis]

To the verse in question, God expressly states that he does not want man to live forever, and that appears to be true prior to the fall. To your comment, that's a bit insulting. I was expecting a little more in the area of respectful conversation when engaging in open discussions with fellow believers, especially given that this is not a doctrinal issue, but an issue within the scope of liberty, a core Baptist Distinctive.

There is no disrespect in that statement. Adam had a choice to live forever in the Garden, and blew it. After that, labor, pain, & death were part of life. There is no verse that indicates spiritual death, it is put to Eve by the serpent.

By that reckoning, any insistance on any specific view of Genesis has the potential to limit God.

No. The insistence is on what Genesis says. My views are not imbued. I go on what is written. Limiting God would be to say "it could not have been done".

Let's insult the brethren some more. There are numerous threads on this board with debates on whether it's a literal or figurative 1000 year reign, and whether a rapture will occur, during, or after it. Feel free to go there and insult them if you wish.

I did not insult him. And what, exactly, is a "figurative 1000 year reign" ?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That's what the serpent said. "Ye shall not surely die"...

The truth is we have no idea what happened in the Garden. You are limiting God, putting him in a box. The lion survived the same way he will survive during Christ's 1000 year reign. I'm guessing there's a good chance you don't believe that, either.

I think you're putting God in a box because he has to act in accordance with your interpretation of scriptures rather than what is.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Natural Selection alive and well. Be careful of your arguments lest you discredit other foundations of your position.

reasonable point.