Belief in Evolutionism debunked by former evolutionist

[Revmitchell]

The only reason classification of species is a problem is that we do not have a complete historical record.

Then no one should be drawing "conclusions" or giving statement of facts.

>So what did this supposed mouse mutate into? A frog, a giraffe, a cow, a fish?

This question illustrates such a gross ignorance of the topic . . . .

Well what ever you do stay away from by blog with your vile language. And your lack of repsonse is certainly not any evidence that your statement is even lucid.

 

[Jim1999]

Not all evolutional thought is Godless. Theistic evolution does not confuse the creation of either man or beast, and does not confuse man with any beast. It accounts for missing links and fills in time and space left void in scripture.

Always remember that the age line usually followed was supplanted by Bishop Ussher and did not exist in original documents at least as far back as is noted.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Johnv]

In order for evolution to be true, the verse "after their own kind" would have to be a lie. You certainly haven't shown it is.

You're dodging. You claimed speciation was not observed or observable. I provided specific examples where speciation was observed, at your request. Rather than acknowlege that speciation has been observed, you're now raising the bar to genus instead of species. If that's what you want to do, fine, but you must in teh very least acknowlege the fact that speciation is academic.

In regards to the verse "after their own kind", you're making some presumptions. First, you're making a presumption that "kind" referrs to genus. That's certainly in the realm of possibility, but it's not a scriptural mandate. Second, you presume that "after their own kind" means that a "kind" is firmly fixed and unchangeable. Again, there's nothing in scripture that mandates that. Third, you're presuming that "after their own kind" means "only after their own kind in all cases". That's no necessarily the case.

I shoudl also note that I'm by no means making a case for evolution in regards to scripture. I'm simply noting it is not required to have a hyperliteral view of Gen1 in order to be bible believer.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

You proved nothing.

And "after their own kind" speaks for it'self. Cats reproduce cats. My pet cat and the lion most likely have a common ancestor. My bet is it was a cat.

And you cannot deny aspects of the bible, and then tell us you are a bible believer. It doesn't work that way. God made Adam out of the dust. There were no monkeys involved.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So what did this supposed mouse mutate into? A frog, a giraffe, a cow, a fish? Any records dating back 200 years on this subject would be quite questionable. The knowledge about DNA etc have increased greatly and there is no way to know that this particular species of mice jumped species, being based on records 200 years ago.



Into what? A cat



So it is within its own species?



Is this another inter species?



Into what an oak tree?



Which can be nothing more than dormant Chromosomes becoming active.



Into what an eagle? This is not evidence, this is claims by unknown people and claims have been known to be proved wild and crazy. "Scientists" declared a tooth to be that of a prehistoric man and it was later discovered that it was only a pig tooth. It is also known that some in the scientific fields will classify "species" conveniently so as to make it possible to make such unfounded claims.

Note post 70

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This is it in a nutshell.

Evolution is bunk.

Note post 70

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This word PEGS it!

Not sure it's a word, but it works nontheless. :laugh:

Not a just statement and not a valued argument.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I call the story of evolution "The Darwin Delusion." Considering the fact that animals can't breed human descendants any more than humans can breed animal descendants whether over a gazillion years or 9 months, then the story of evolution is not only a fairy tale, it's a delusion which can be explained by the following:

When writing a story, an author has to make up his characters before he can go on with his story. Since Darwin had no evidence of his characters in the real world, he had to conjure them up in his imagination. He simply looked for an alternative to the biblical account of the creation of man and said; "If man wasn't created by God, then where could he have come from? I know, something that already exists like...another animal. Hey, yeah...which animal looks like a human? An ape!"

So here's how the story of evolution began:

Once upon a time 500,000 years ago... no 750,000 years ago... no 2,000,000 years ago...I'll skip the setting and go on.

Once upon a long time ago, an ape,..no a monkey, no a half-human- half monkey...I'll skip that part too and just call him an ancestor common to...humans...no monkeys..no humans and monkeys...no, humans and some other unknown animal.

Once upon a long time ago a common ancestor, no many common ancestors, yeah, I'll stick with that...mated with a monkey..no an ape...

Needless to say, a story that didn't start well can't end well either. Nevertheless, because people were eagerly looking for an alternate explanation to God's creation, it wouldn't be hard at all for them to accept even a badly written fiction story that never got started.

Since Darwin never described his main characters, then he can't possibly know what they were capable of breeding. But again, since the public wanted even a badly written story, then Darwin left it to the imaginations of his readers to finish the story. But as expected, one can't finish a story that never even began which is why of course, no one today still knows the main characters (common ancestors) of Darwin's story.

But what makes his story a delusion, is that Darwin actually believed that his characters existed! It's bad enough when an author believes that characters he can describe existed, but when he believes that characters that he himself can't describe existed, then his story is even more delusional.

When God says that the wisdom of the world is foolishness in His sight, nothing proves Him right better than the story of evolution.

Kind of sounds like the rolling end times theory a lot of people put out huh? When you are lacking the privilage of observation you have to draw conclusions that change as you get better information.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No evidence for this. This theory is a result of extrapolation rather than a viewable consistent set of links. And there are all kinds of theories on what happened to these supposed links. The bigger problem is that evolutionists refuse to even take a look at the fact that there are limits on the natural selection on DNA. God declared there is a boundary and you, DNA, will go no further. ( Genesis 1:11, 21, 25) How about that scripture speaks to uniformtarianism. They cannot account for this so they extrapolate that changes in DNA if taken to its, supposed conclusion, would lead to speciation. But this is a misapplication of extrapolation and , again, avoids DNA limits. Evolution further removes the fact that mutation always moves in the destructive direction hence we have (Romans 8:19-21). When science contradicts with scripture we need to side with scripture. It is always reliable and science is ever changing and unreliable.

I like to see in scripture where God said or "declared there is a boundery" If you properly understood evolution "after their own kind" wouldn't really be an issue. Science hasn't contradicted scripture. Its contradicted your interpretation of scripture.

 

[Johnv]

You proved nothing.

On the contrary. You asked for evidetiary support of speciation. I provided it. That's it.

And "after their own kind" speaks for it'self. Cats reproduce cats. My pet cat and the lion most likely have a common ancestor. My bet is it was a cat.

I'm not in disagreement with you at all there. BTW, the common housecat and lion are dramatically different species, so we're obviously in agreement that speciation is academic.

I haven't once argued or claimes that development from one genus to another has been demonstrated. I have, however, demonstrated that speciation is documented, rebutting the claim that speciation is impossible.

And you cannot deny aspects of the bible, and then tell us you are a bible believer.

Taking a nonliteralist view of Gen1 is not "denying aspects of the bible".

 

[DHK]

Where is the evidence of evolution taking place today?
If it is true, why don't we see it?

 

[Revmitchell]

I like to see in scripture where God said or "declared there is a boundery"

I gave it to you.

If you properly understood evolution "after their own kind" wouldn't really be an issue.

Oh of course. How convenient.

Science hasn't contradicted scripture. Its contradicted your interpretation of scripture.

Secular evolutionists say differently,

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Where is the evidence of evolution taking place today?
If it is true, why don't we see it?

One word: Time.

Keep in mind. that it takes the solar system approximately 250 million years to make one orbit of the Milky Way Galaxy. According to evolutionist and many many many other scientist the earth made that journey 20 times before man entered the scene. Any biological change in 10,000 years of human civilization considering a time scale of that magnatude would not be noticable.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I gave it to you.



Oh of course. How convenient.



Secular evolutionists say differently,

I could care less what secular evolutionist say. They're secular for a reason. What I care about is facts and truth. Just because they don't believe in God doesn't mean everything they say is thrown out the window. As long as they've got good data and information. I'm ok with it. If they want to disbelieve in God thats up to them. But what you really find is that they believe in a "God" of Some sort. Even Arthur C. Clark believed in a god though reasoned it was an alien life form that brought order to the chaotic universe.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

On the contrary. You asked for evidetiary support of speciation. I provided it. That's it.

You gave unsubstantiated stories about plants becoming plants.

I'm not in disagreement with you at all there. BTW, the common housecat and lion are dramatically different species, so we're obviously in agreement that speciation is academic.

I haven't once argued or claimes that development from one genus to another has been demonstrated. I have, however, demonstrated that speciation is documented, rebutting the claim that speciation is impossible.

I think you are playing word games. Adaptation is not evolution.

Taking a nonliteralist view of Gen1 is not "denying aspects of the bible".

Denying scripture isn't denying scripture ?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You gave unsubstantiated stories about plants becoming plants.



I think you are playing word games. Adaptation is not evolution.


Denying scripture isn't denying scripture ?

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.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Also, the tiger being able to successfully mate with a lion seems to prove the bible true.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Adaptation is very much evolution and a specific aspect of evolution. Primarily Natural Selection.

In order for natural selection to be true, death of some lesser animals would have resulted in the evolution of man. The bible says man brought death into the world, it cannot be the other way around.

Adaptation is not evolution.

 

[DHK]

One word: Time.

Keep in mind. that it takes the solar system approximately 250 million years to make one orbit of the Milky Way Galaxy. According to evolutionist and many many many other scientist the earth made that journey 20 times before man entered the scene. Any biological change in 10,000 years of human civilization considering a time scale of that magnatude would not be noticable.

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.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

In order for natural selection to be true, death of some lesser animals would have resulted in the evolution of man. The bible says man brought death into the world, it cannot be the other way around.

Adaptation is not evolution.

Depends on what you mean by death. Certainly, Christians acknowledge two forms of death. material and spiritual. God breathed into man and he became a living being. So how is man alive or in what aspect? I think its alive in relation to having an eternal spirit that can commune with God. Also note if there were not death before Adam all animals would have been vegiterians and you would have to conclude plants needed to die which couldn't be because death was "brought by man" a serious contradiction. Biologically there are animals that could not survive by vegitation alone. Insects would have had no population controls etc... There are some serious implications that nothing died before man sinned.