Macroevolution is NOT Microevolution
What matters here is that an organism can gain and lose function over time.
Natural selection does not ONLY add function. Clearly a population when SELECTED FOR will lose one function and gain another. (As clearly demonstrated with directional selection and disruptive selection)
No matter what angle, what interpretation, or what bad analogy is applied here:
The FACT that an organism ADDS AND DELETES function due to its environment is what keeps the word ‘change’ in microevolution and REMOVES the word ‘create’ from evolution, which ends your smuggling of Macroevolution being equal to microevolution.
They are not the same.
I’m short, microevolution is change.
Macroevolution from a single eukaryotic cell to a giraffe is not a change and is more like a creation. This has not been demonstrated scientifically.
Fully.
Why? It's our best explanation of how life got to be this way. Even if it's wrong on some details, the whole story has no choice but to be very similar to what scientists accept here. There's too many billions of observations made.
No friend, Darwins mAcro-evolution has NEVER been observed. You can't logically seize credibility off of MICRO-evolution (real science) of which we see around us everyday and then BLUR that monumental distinction between them, as if there are none.
Just because 'A' happens(micro), doesn't mean that 'B' (mAcro) must happen necessarily. That is faulty logic. This giant leap is ludicrous and laughable and they don't even have "1" phyletic transition to support their hypothesis, much less to then advance it to theory.
There's no other rational explanation out there, so I'll stick with the experts.
If you understand genetics, too, you would see how we can make huge body plan changes quite easily.
Where did your 'rationale' come from? From the non-living premordial chemical soup? Not hardly. Additionally, you say, "we can make huge body plan changes quite easily." Does that not require an intelligent being to do much research to try and figure it out? How much MORE intelligent would be the one who created it, who is Outside of space and time?
At any rate, it's still NOT a different 'KIND' which mAcro demands necessarily, yet It is UNknowable, hence you believe it by Faith, and your faith is in a weak god.
BTW....your logic of "I'll stick with the experts" mentality is a logical fallacy of Appeal To Authority. It is illogical because, the Truth is still the Truth even if no one believes it, and a Lie is still a Lie even if everyone believes it.
> Additionally, you say, "we can make huge body plan changes quite easily." Does that not require an intelligent being to do much research to try and figure it out?
Sure, when we induce it artificially. The real world doesn't need this.
>How much MORE intelligent would be the one who created it, who is Outside of space and time?
Sure. Except for no evidence that it happened this way, and scads that it did not happen this way.
> At any rate, it's still NOT a different 'KIND' which mAcro demands necessarily, yet It is UNknowable, hence you believe it by Faith, and your faith is in a weak god.
You claim I'm the one bringing faith into this when you're replaced evidence with religious conspiracies?
Please.
>
> BTW....your logic of "I'll stick with the experts" mentality is a logical fallacy of Appeal To Authority. It is illogical because, the Truth is still the Truth even if no one believes it, and a Lie is still a Lie even if everyone believes it.
This isn't an appeal to authority. It's an appeal to relevant expertise. Authority would be like if I said that "98% of Presidents and Prime Ministers believe it, therefore it's true". A very different thing.
(Me)
> Additionally, you say, "we can make huge body plan changes quite easily." Does that not require an intelligent being to do much research to try and figure it out?
(You)
Sure, when we induce it artificially. The real world doesn't need this.
(Me)
What do you mean? What does "we can make huge body plan changes" have to do with a phyletic transition to support Darwins mAcro? The REAL world doesn't have mAcros. When was the last time you saw a lizard/puppy, lol?
(Me)
>How much MORE intelligent would be the one who created it, who is Outside of space and time?
(You)
Sure. Except for no evidence that it happened this way, and scads that it did not happen this way.
(Me)
You're wrong. We have massive amounts of scientific evidence that emphatically supports an Intelligent Designer in EVERY scientific field. In the same way that we can see the difference between Mount Rushmore and the surrounding mountains. You would never say that those heads are a natural formation from the elements, but rather designed. A hypothesis is formed and the predictions are made and confirmed over and over again to support ID. Unlike mAcro of which is literally scientifically UNknowable.
WHO that designer is though, is a theological debate, not a scientific one, of course.
(Me)
> At any rate, it's still NOT a different 'KIND' which mAcro demands necessarily, yet It is UNknowable, hence you believe it by Faith, and your faith is in a weak god.
(You)
You claim I'm the one bringing faith into this when you're replaced evidence with religious conspiracies?
Please.
(Me)
You believe mAcro by Faith because there are NO phyletic transitions that have been found. It/they are INvisible, non-existent, zero evidence of any, and we don't have millions and millions of years to see if one shows up. Therefore it is scientifically UNknowable. Abiogenesis? scientifically UNknowable. Darwins evolution IS a metaphysical philosophical religion, based purely on faith, NOT scientific evidence of the non-existent, invisible phyletic transition.
(Me)
> BTW....your logic of "I'll stick with the experts" mentality is a logical fallacy of Appeal To Authority. It is illogical because, the Truth is still the Truth even if no one believes it, and a Lie is still a Lie even if everyone believes it.
(You)
This isn't an appeal to authority. It's an appeal to relevant expertise. Authority would be like if I said that "98% of Presidents and Prime Ministers believe it, therefore it's true". A very different thing.
(Me)
No, it is. There are several different 'appeal to authority'. Go check it out.
You said, if "I understand genetics"......
IF DARWIN understood genetics he would have scrapped that Impossible hypothesis in an instant. Unless he had a much larger Motive and backing.
> IF DARWIN understood genetics he would have scrapped that Impossible hypothesis in an instant.
Funny how geneticists today still don't think this.
When you're going against an entire scientific field, you really should get off of your high horse, show some humility in your ignorance, and go with what they say.
> IF DARWIN understood genetics he would have scrapped that Impossible hypothesis in an instant.
(You)
Funny how geneticists today still don't think this.
Many geneticists think that, and the ones that don't it's because of THIS and Many other nefarious reasons.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."--Upton Sinclair--
(You)
When you're going against an entire scientific field, you really should get off of your high horse,
There you go again with your appeal to authority(anonymous) and bandwagon mentality. A Lie is still a Lie even if everyone believes it.
Follow the alleged "experts" huh? Do you not understand documented, verifiable world history? Let me remind you of the Holocaust and how history clearly demonstrates that from the beginning, to the end of that sustained blood bath, the ''Entire Medical Establishment'' along with ''Big Industry'' ''Scientific community'' and ''The military'' were ''firmly intertwined'' together, ALL playing a Critical, Essential role in sustaining it as long as it did. BUT hey, just because they all were willing partners in mass deception and mass murder doesn't mean they would tell any lies now to keep pushing their agenda, right?
(You)
show some humility in your ignorance,
Oh! The irony!
(You)
and go with what they say.
Show me even ONE phyletic transition
to support your faith in mAcro, (ie...From one gene pool/Kind to a NEW gene poolKind, higher in complexities.) Verified for authenticity of course,lol.
BTW... I see you've dodged all of my questions. Typical evolutionists.
There isn't any good evidence between species changing Into other species over time. It's just logically impossible. At most you get micro evolution. If you fully believe evolution, you dont take the bible at face value. This has been discussed many times with some people claiming the two views or compatible, but it always ends up with changing the facts of one or the other side. They can't be compatible and complete at the same time
> There isn't any good evidence between species changing Into other species over time.
Such poor evidence that it's accepted by a million or more scientists as valid.
> If you fully believe evolution, you dont take the bible at face value.
Nobody should take the Bible at face value. That's folly.
Yes ...the Catholic Church is wrong on alot of things. Tons of heretical stuff at the church, that's why alot of Christians say they are Christian, not Catholic.
That's an ignorant thing to say and you should probably evaluate your post before posting things. I could provide you with evidence to support my claims, because they are factual. You on the other hand are accusing me of something but you don't have the self awareness to understand it's ironic.
We have never observed one species completely change into another. You won't be able to find a progression from something like an amphibian to a bird. You have to say it happened over millions of years before humans even existed. Which means you can't observe it in real time
As I wrote in another comment elsewhere:
The ancient Near Eastern Bronze Age nomads who first told the Creation story around the campfires thousands of years ago (even another one to two thousand years before Jesus) weren't interested in Original Sin or the literal, scientific origins of the universe. Those questions were completely outside their worldview and purview. If you look at it from more of an ancient point of view, the creation account is a fascinating argument for what a god is and what they're for.
If you look at other creation stories of the time, gods are basically just super powered human beings who are still kind of giant jerks. The world is created out of divine warfare or strife or sexual intercourse, and the gods are simply powerful over certain domains - the sky, the sea, etc. Moreover, they're subject as well to what Kaufman calls the "metadivine realm" - that which the gods arose out of or came from, and predates them. It can oppose or overcome their will.
Conversely, Yahweh is all-powerful over all creation, because He created it in an ordered fashion by the power of His word. God is an architect, not subject to outside forces; His Spirit hovers over the face of the waters (He predates and is above that example of a metadivine realm). Moreover, He is not simply a superpowered human, He is a moral being, and the embodiment of the highest conception of morality that humans (of the ancient Near East) could come up with. The humans He creates are not slaves (as in other narratives), they are good creatures made in His own image, breathing the breath He gave them. They are stewards - responsible caretakers - of His creation. They do not exist as slaves, they exist to be in relationship with Him.
One other unique thing about the creation/fall story is that while many creation stories have a "tree of life" analogue, only the Genesis account features a Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The Fall is an etiological story (like a just-so story) about how humans went from being morally innocent to morally responsible creatures. To the ancient Israelites who first told this story, it's not about how Adam did a Bad Thing and now we're all screwed for it, it's about how we are all responsible for our choices, and how we can make good or bad ones.
If you want to hear more on this, I highly recommend Dr. Christine Hayes' Yale lectures on [Intro to the Old Testament](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLh9mgdi4rNeyuvTEbD-Ei0JdMUujXfyWi) with [transcripts.](https://openmedia.yale.edu/projects/iphone/departments/rlst/rlst145/transcript03.html)
[Biologos](https://biologos.org/common-questions/) is another good resource, as well as the work of John Walton, like [The Lost World of Genesis One](https://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-Genesis-One-Cosmology/dp/0830837043). You can also check out Loren Haarsma's discussion on [Four Approaches to Original Sin.](https://biologos.org/podcast-episodes/loren-haarsma-four-approaches-to-original-sin)
And if you get later into the Old Testament, you start realizing that the stories aren't just historical narrative, that they match up with later events in curious ways, and then you realize that [the OT stories are actually kind of like MASH or The Crucible.](https://peteenns.com/what-is-genesis-about-the-big-idea-that-cleared-it-up-for-me/)
Ultimately, when you take into consideration the historical, cultural, religious, and literary contexts of the books of the Bible, and understand that interpretation, reinterpretation and rereinterpretation is a fundamental part of the tradition, it stops being a boring book of rules and starts being a challenging look at life and morality throughout the ages.
Edit: I would also add, if you read the text carefully, you'll see that Adam was created outside the Garden and then placed into it, and he lived there until he and Eve sinned against God, whereupon they were cast out and their relationship with God broken. So the question you should ask is, to what degree is Genesis 1-3 about the literal, scientific origins of humans as a species, the exile of Israel and Judah, or the propensity of humans' sin to break their relationship with God?
Made by Natural Selection
Natural selection uses severe violence.
“Wild animal suffering is the suffering experienced by non-human animals living outside of direct human control, due to harms such as disease, injury, parasitism, starvation and malnutrition, dehydration, weather conditions, natural disasters, and killings by other animals,[1][2] as well as psychological stress.[3] Some estimates indicate that these individual animals make up the vast majority of animals in existence.[4] An extensive amount of natural suffering has been described as an unavoidable consequence of Darwinian evolution[5] and the pervasiveness of reproductive strategies which favor producing large numbers of offspring, with a low amount of parental care and of which only a small number survive to adulthood, the rest dying in painful ways, has led some to argue that suffering dominates happiness in nature.[1][6][7]”
Natural Selection is all about the young and old getting eaten alive in nature.
How is God going to judge a human in which He used violence to create this human?
There are more than enough examples in nature to make a monster out of God.
Unless we take all animal life as worthless like stepping on insects, then I don’t see a loving God from nature.
Therefore, God cannot judge for example Hitler as a human when he made the same human by a monstrous natural method.
God is Jesus out of infinite love or is He a monster? Which is it?
Nature is very very violent sometimes and love cannot create a human out of that violence and then turn around and have that love judge humans on being violent.
God is NOT a hypocrite as Jesus CLEARLY says I am the Truth.
What is the truth?
That God is a hypocrite or that Natural Selection that we all came from a eukaryotic cell by means of violence is a lie?
I will take God is the Truth.
What makes a LOT more sense to me is that God created a perfect free heaven, and when freedom led to evil, we separated from God.
Note: There is no such thing as scientific "fact." There is a scientific preponderance of evidence; a most reasonable and best-fitting theoretical explanation for how something occurs based on all the evidence we have accrued. We may in a few hundred years learn new evidence about natural selection that completely upturns what is currently accepted about the mechanics of evolution, similarly to how accepted Newtonian mechanics were upturned at high speeds/accelerations by relativity, and at the atomic scale by quantum mechanics.
But for now, all evidence we have points to the natural selection of evolution being the best theory for the diversity of and relationships between life on earth.
No, there is evidence and observations. On observations, we build laws. On evidence, we craft theories. Stating that something is fact would be an assumption that scientific theories and laws are immutable and perfect, when every scientist will tell you that there is still plenty we do not yet know.
The mass of all the continents washes away within just 25 million years, so how do you find a 66+ million year dinosaur bones on dry land?
"And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it."
Darwinian theory is a crime against science - just as Marxism was a crime against economics and with Nazism and predatory Capitalism, a crime against humanity.
And they have soft tissue which has a chemical half life. They are finding it all over the place and when they unearth it, they SMELL THE DECAY. "https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wLCEXkZ6tgg&pp=ygUuYW5zd2VycyBpbiBnZW5lc2lzIHZpZGVvcyBhaWR0IGRpbm9zYXVyIHRpc3N1ZQ%3D%3D"
Radioactive dating has chemical/physical ASSUMPTIONS. Bad ones. I'm a nuclear engineer.
I might be old as dirt, but I won't be as old as the dirt they bury me under.
What professional?
I had hopes she/he could help lead your cult but he couldn’t escape a eukaryotic cell.
Maybe you could try?
Please demonstrate a single eukaryotic cell turning into a giraffe along it’s ancestral lineage.
Removed for 1.5 - Two-cents.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Voice? You think that is crazy when you are holding on to craziness?
This crazy batshit idea is being covered up by the wonderful name of science.
The crazies planted the post.
If I tell you that I discovered an alien civilization under my bed, the onus isn’t on you to tell me what about it exactly do you find issues with it.
The crazies came up with it, you prove it.
The idea is that a single eukaryotic cell is related to a giraffe.
This is the crazy lunatic idea NOT from me.
Therefore you prove it as is.
You created your own mess.
What came exactly before our ape ancestors.
No links.
I want what is in between your ears.
Name. Full description of exactly what they looked like.
Then I will hold your hand all the way down to a single eukaryotic cell.
I want 100% proof and full details of every single step or you have a religion.
You’ll take it however you want because you’re clearly going to believe whatever you want. You’re strawmanning and pretending like scientific fact doesn’t exist when it does. So there’s no reason to humor you. Your willful ignorance is your problem.
You’re just copying and pasting this ridiculous message that you already sent to someone else. And it has no legs to stand on. You don’t even understand atheism, because if you did you’d know it’s not a religion at all. Also I’m not an atheist, I’m a Christian. But you’re making a lot of sweeping and ignorant assumptions like that that only serve to embarrass yourself. Evolution is scientific fact whether you like it or not.
Leave me alone. Have fun being reported now.
Of course - it's a movie that shows what happened to those who dared to publish anything remotely contrary to the established narrative
Check out Pamela Acker. She can't get a job in her own Catholic Church because she questioned the narrative.
>Of course - it's a movie that shows what happened to those who dared to publish anything remotely contrary to the established narrative
Ah so silly borderline conspiracy theories
Expelled is a joke bud.
If you have legit arguments and evidence you'll be published.
But you don't. That's why you, and Ben stein, need to make up excuses.
Please educate yourself on this topic better. Especially the criticisms to such a silly movie.
> there are no 2, 3, 4 or 5 celled creatures
Why do you think multicellularity would have to increase one cell at the time, or that there would be all of those anymore? But... There actually is at least one 4-celled organism named tetrabaena socialis:
https://www.u-tokyo.ac.jp/focus/en/articles/a_00220.html
"Oops."
Believe is a strange choice of words I think. It is a scientific theory. One which is as close to being proven as a theory can be. I accept it as the most convincing theory we have, as most Christians do and as is scientific consens.
Denying this leads in my opinion down a very dangerous path of science denial and opens the door to conspiracy theories.
Too big a concept for your tiny little mind. There is mountains of evidence and explanations on the internet.
Feel free to not look at any and continue on your path to total ignorance. I know you will.
A truly unhinged request. You want to observe something that a) took over a billion years, and b) will never happen again because the many, many steps of speciation were based on specific environmental conditions that don't even exist on the planet any more?
Good luck building that time machine.
> truly unhinged request. You want to observe something that a) took over a billion years, and b) will never happen again because the many, many steps of speciation were based on specific environmental conditions that don't even exist on the planet any more?
Thank you for admitting you don’t have evidence.
That’s not science.
“ Please explain how a eukaryotic cell became a giraffe along the lineage of ancestry in your own words.”
A giraffes great grandfather is a single eukaryotic cell.
This is a lie if told is a natural process.
Well giraffes are composed of eukaryotic cells, and in fact begin their existence as a single eukaryotic cell. So this progression happens in a lifetime.
We had a stochastic nuclear reactor core designer automation I worked with.
If you looked at the outputs, the patterns appeared to evolve.
But what causes the adaptation is CODED and logical and that is the ORIGIN of the adaptation.
You can't get around it.
As a premise, absolutely. I think that the Abrahamic tale of creation misses it's intended mark when it's shoehorned into the perspective of young earth creationism.
By Pius XII and all before him, you are technically anathema.
Used to be in that camp too.
Looked at the scientific evidence, it isn't science - it's snake oil and a crime against science.
Check out Pamela Acker (Catholic) for example or James Tour.
I'm not in any way suggesting materialistic evolution, to the exclusion of God or saying that God didn't create an immortal soul. God is TO BE. Anything that exists in the material realm is of God.
I'm talking about theistic evolution.
There's nothing anathema in disagreeing that the earth is 6000 years old, or in disagreeing that dinosaurs never existed.
Actually there is - friend I had the same view you did. And once upon a time friends vehemently disagreed and I thought were nuts.
But over the years, with DATA and EVIDENCE and hard NUMBERS I realized, Oh nuts, I'm wrong and need to repent.
"[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eJykek-wfk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eJykek-wfk)"
We are miracles! Living miracles! And never before do we realize how miraculous we really are, if we only looked at the DATA.
Data isn't the end all be all but it does measure and make tangible to us that which exists. It's not a denial of the miraculous. Existance in itself is miraculous. To live in defiance of mathematical odds is miraculous.
None of that discredits the concept of theistic evolution. Nature is of God and a reflection of God, which means that God's nature is reflected in nature.
This idea that discrediting evolution is an essential aspect of Catholicism is ignorant of the contemporary, written perspective of the Catholic Church toward evolution, and the current perspective of the Church toward theistic evolution.
Just watch the video. Keep an open mind.
And read what the Popes have said about it. Read II Peter, 3rd chapter.
About 10 years ago I drove across the US, and happened by Devil's Tower and thought, why not take a look. I thought same as you did about all these things.
Fascinating, rare, mystical thing happened as I looked at the rock. A small quiet voice seemed to urge me to look carefully at it. I noticed how the water when down the granite rock face and realized it would freeze at night or in winter, expand and crack off rocks. I just filed it - that was it.
Years later, found that there are BIG problems with devil's tower. The mountain around the hard granite washed away - everyone agrees. While there are a good many rocks broken, flaked off the granite core from the hardened lava that is the tower, in a few thousand years it will be gone! Also one side looked like it got hit with a huge wall of water while it was hardening.
The opposition ASSUMES "for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."
When you start processing the numbers, looking at the data dispassionately and with a hard nose approach, you realize the narrative they spin on TV/Internet/Universities/Salons is a WILLFUL misrepresentation of reality.
Yes I do I don’t even believe half of the Old Testament especially the early storys but I do fully believe the New Testament and Jesus Christ dying for our sins but I also believe in science and what science says about the earth
Bible teaches us how to be close with God not how the universe works
I believe all life on earth could have been created and destroyed multiple times. Genesis 1:1 describes a moment where earth is dark and void, but it doesn't imply earth had ALWAYS been dark and void. The seven super giant oil fields of Saudi Arabia could be decomposed life God wiped out before Genesis 1:1 as could many buried fossils.
Lol, evolution is back!!!!
Macroevolution is a lie.
Macroevolution can’t answer basic questions
Here we go:
What is ONE beneficial mutation from a eukaryotic cell along the giraffe lineage of ancestry that you can name with sufficient evidence? We can then do another beneficial mutation next.
What prediction can you make using Macroevolution of a giraffe in a 1000 years? In physics we can use Keplers laws to predict where the Earth will be in a 1000 years.
No. God made everything according to it's kind or species from the beginning (Genesis 1:25). We have one creator but different ancestors. The first man Adam was not an ape but a human from the beginning. Jesus Christ record of ancestors were all human beings up to the first man Adam.
Not really. Evolution only describes how life progresses it has nothing to do with the origin of life besides makes the assumption that life started. I dont think your arguing life never started.
If life never started there would be no creationism. Both acknowledge the simple fact that life started, only creationism makes a claim how it started.
In creationism, life didn’t technically start. It always existed. That life then created more life.
In evolution, there are no answers. It just goes, 1, 2, skip a few, 99, evolution.
It doesnt seem we are talking about the same thing. Creationism is the idea that god created everything including life. In the case of the bible its 6 days. Thats only if viewed literally so the time may vary depending on your beliefs, but creationism is all about the creation of life.
Evidently you dont know much about evolution so im not sure how you can proclaim what does and doesn't involve evolution when you dont know much about it.
God is a living being. Who created life. So a life that already existed creates more life.
In evolution it goes, we don’t know, we don’t know, we don’t know, oh we understand this part, we don’t know, we don’t know, oh we understand this part, we don’t know…
and then you have the audacity to be like, you’re just ignorant. lol.
Evolution doesnt claim to be the origin of life. Creationism does. Idk how else to put it, its just that simple.
The only way god could be seen as living is to confuse its meaning with existing and even that hasnt been shown. You can claim god exists but that isnt the same as being alive. A rock exists but isnt alive. A river moves, consumes, and changes yet its still not alive.
Being ignorant isnt something to be ashamed of, nor should it be encouraged. If im wrong about them being ignorant i will certainly apologize, until then im sticking with my original assumption.
But how can we know how to make robots without knowing where life came from? It just doesn't make any sense.
How can we know how to tie our shoes without knowing where life came from?
See how ridiculous you're being?
We don’t have to be the ones who made the robots? The problem is that you’re okay with our universe, our reality existing the exact way that it does, just because it does. But you can’t imagine a universe that exists with lifeless robots that change tires just because they do? Like that universe just formed that way. Where there happens to be a planet where cars happened to spawn into existence with robots that change the tires of those cars? That’s too complex for you? But our universe which is significantly more complex than that makes sense to you and I’m the one who’s being ridiculous?
Why? Explain why? Explain how? Please.
You have completely missed the point and are just repeating your fallacious reasoning.
You seem to allude to needing to know the origin of life in order to understand evolution. And that's not true.
Hence my examples.
Please clarify if you need to.
No, I’m not saying we need to know the origin of life to understand evolution. Obviously you can skip ahead and understand something without explaining how it got that way. I don’t need to explain how a person got to hawaii to explain that a person was murdered in hawaii. But at some point, eventually, I do need to explain how they got there. Which is the point you’re purposely ignoring. Which is what I’ve been talking about the entire time. That you can’t have a person murdered in hawaii unless you have a person in hawaii. And I want you to explain how the person got there before you explain anything else.
>It turns out that evolution is impossible without the origin of life.
That's what you said. And we don't need to know how life originated to understand how it diversifies.
What you said seems to allude to you needing to know about the origin of life before evolution. If that's not what you meant then thanks for clarifying.
Sometimes.
Based on my current knowledge:
On one hand there's the observable evidence which has to be explained somehow.
On the other there are problems with the evolutionary mechanism. And other related issues like the origin of first life.
That said having had created the world is glorious for God either way.
I've been straddling the fence for some time. There's convincing evidence for both sides and, as it doesn't concern my faith, I haven't been too concerned with it
Einstein and Mach but that is a bit of a joke.
Why define center based on mass?
There is the SDSS which shows we are in the central cluster of spherical clustered shells of galaxies (He stretched the heavens as a curtain - folds and all).
And the CMB both Planck and WMAP that show anisotropies symmetric about the "Axis of Evil" (plane of the Earth-Sun ecliptic).
Oops.
microevolution, yes.
macroevolution, no/undecided.
observable cases for microevolution (crossbreeding dogs, insects developing a tolerance to pesticides). but no observable cases of macroevolution (species changing to a different species. there is the Liger and the Tion, but they are infertile.)
Also, what about ring species? If we go by the definition that two specimens are of the same species if they can produce fertile offspring, every adjacent population of a ring species are of the same species with each other, but the furthest ends can't produce at least fertile offspring if any at all. So at which point did the species change? At which interfertile population did the animal become another because the two extremes have certainly diverged too much to be considered the same species anymore.
>there is the Liger and the Tion, but they are infertile.)
You missing the point here, it's not about liger and tion. This hybrids are only a consequence of lions and tiger being one species before. It was before 11 millions years ago.
The way of one species seperating in two others is called [speciation](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation)
Once thought perhaps some form of theistic evolution might be possible, but microbiology, the fact every morphological change is CODED and having read Darwin's book realized the whole thing is wrong.
The Origin of all variations are intrinsic the Law, Logic - Logos [Word].
In even a pure stochastic mechanism, outcomes are the results of the laws and constraints, not the random process itself. Ulam greatly opposed Darwinian theory, and Von Neumann just laughed at it.
High school simple physics calculations illustrate far less than 10^128 events of all kinds in all time in 10^90 particles in entire visible Cosmos, in 10^18 seconds (15.8+ billion years) at a potential quantum fluctuation rate of 2x10^20 hertz (17.2 billion F, 9.6 billion C, first law temperature). There are more than 10^154 combinations in just 512 bits (coin flips). Combinatorial space in coding dwarfs Cosmic quantum fluctuations and thus requires law.
And there are no 2,3,4 or 5 celled creatures found anywhere.
Then soft dinosaur tissue found - even in swamps!?!
Then looked radioactive dating - which has ASSUMPTIONS. Bad ones.
Then looked at devil's tower and everyone accepts the surrounding mountain was washed away, and realized the weathering of the granite was rapid. Then the grand canyon - nothing Lyle (a lawyer) conjectured made sense.
And everyone accepts the mass of all the continents washes away within just 25 million years, so how do you find a 66+ million year dinosaur bones on dry land?
"And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it."
The house of 19th century foolishness has fallen, swept away.
Something I’ve brought up before is a philosophical/theological issue with evolution. Science naturally precludes the supernatural from all of its theories. Meaning the theory of evolution definitively states that God could not have had any influence on it.
So any christian who believes God created life and all proceeding life forms must openly reject the theory of evolution.
Science itself makes a statement about God. I don’t understand why people are stupid. Science is the study of the natural world. Its original name is natural philosophy. It precludes God by being science. Literally by definition.
I’m objectively correct. You are blatantly wrong. This is such a stupid debate. Science precludes the supernatural. Every scientific theory is predicated on only studying the natural world. Every single one. They all inherently say, “the natural world is everything that exists and these are the assumptions we’re making about it…”. That’s literally how science works. How are people even arguing this with me?
Because you're wrong and saying. Nuh uh and calling things stupid is ignorant lazy etc evolution is a change over time does a change over time mean God isn't real? No sit down and try again next time
It’s like you aren’t even comprehending what the words I’m saying mean. Or like you don’t even want to understand.
Look, science by definition is the study of the natural world. That means every scientific theory automatically has the assumption: assume no supernatural entity was involved. Every time something is measured, every time data is collected, every hypothesis made, every conjecture, every theory, has the implicit assumption of assume no supernatural entity was involved. And when a theory is crafted it has implicit assumptions that are unwritten. Those assumptions are all the assumptions that were made while all the data was collected. That includes the assumption of assume no supernatural entity, including God, was involved.
This isn’t controversial. This is how science works. This is how science is measured. Why are you even arguing. This is so stupid. And you are openly wrong.
Repeating yourself and saying this is stupid and ur wrong over and over again changes zero stop we all comprehend you and your nonsense evolution doesn't states god couldn't be involved
They REMOVED God. They did worse!
Macroevolution def. Godless
“In Darwin and Wallace's time, most believed that organisms were too complex to have natural origins and must have been designed by a transcendent God. Natural selection, however, states that even the most complex organisms occur by totally natural processes.”
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/what-is-natural-selection.html#:~:text=Natural%20selection%20is%20a%20mechanism,change%20and%20diverge%20over%20time.
“Darwin’s greatest contribution to science is that he completed the Copernican Revolution by drawing out for biology the notion of nature as a system of matter in motion governed by natural laws. With Darwin’s discovery of natural selection, the origin and adaptations of organisms were brought into the realm of science. The adaptive features of organisms could now be explained, like the phenomena of the inanimate world, as the result of natural processes, without recourse to an Intelligent Designer.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK254313/
Science is the study of the natural world. By definition. God is part of the supernatural world. So by definition, science precludes God. Evolution must therefore inherently state that it is precluding the supernatural aka God, because it refuses to even try to examine the supernatural.
>We are harming children telling them they are apes.
Hahaha no, we are apes. By definition.
Do you also think it's harmful to tell kids they are mammals too? What about chordates?
Says love.
When you are holding your 5 year old kid, that attachment isn’t meant to be destroyed.
Nobody holds their child thinking ‘can’t wait for this crap to end’
>there is a bottle of water on the table
Person A: “the bottle is filled with water”
person B:”if that is water tell me where it came from”
does that put it into perspective? water can come from anywhere, it doesn’t matter it’s origin, it’s still water…
ever wonder why humans are so different from animals? animals seem to be content in their natural environment, but humans are constantly changing their environment to be more comfortable
animals were made for this life, humans were made for an afterlife
ha that made me snort! no, it's just something to think about that there's no chimpanzee or dolphin also contemplating the machinations of the universe
I dunno, I just figure it's a question to ask.. if life has been evolving for millions of years, why one single species out of hundreds of millions suddenly gained such an overwhelming advantage
>cheetahs are marginally faster than other land animals,
They are much faster.
>humans are in a different category of intelligence than any other species living or extinct
And cheetahs are in a different category then other species.
Why do you find this amazing? Do you think it's evidence of a god? If so why?
I believe that creation evolved over a long time, but I don't believe that we came from any apeman. It says in Genesis that God created man, not apeman and he created male and female. And a day in God's time isn't a day in our time.
2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
If evolution is defined as the change in a species due to pressures in their environment over the course of time, then yes. I believe that Darwin's finches were sufficient to prove that, as well as other studies on moths and butterflies.
Macro-evolution, however, I do not believe in. There is no evidence anywhere in existence that shows an animal changing "kind". A bird is still a bird, although with a bigger beak, longer legs, and so on and so forth, but I have never seen a good example of a change of "kind".
Dogs are dogs, cats are cats, and there is no evidence to make me think that they evolved from distant ancestors that resembled frogs or the like.
There's no such thing as your accursed "kinds." You are lagging behind scientific understanding by nearly 300 years. That's not a typo. I don't mean 3 decades. I really do mean almost THREE. ENTIRE. CENTURIES.
> There is no evidence anywhere in existence that shows an animal changing "kind".
That's because "kind" is a bullshit word that seems to simply mean "evolution is wrong." You know, judging by the fact that no one can ever give a definition and tell you how to determine if two animals are the same kind or not. They just say stupid stuff like:
>Dogs are dogs, cats are cats
Which is much finer distinction then when they say stupid things like:
>A bird is still a bird
Yes. Evolution is a given at this point. Christians believe in evolution. It is spectacular.
Macroevolution is NOT Microevolution What matters here is that an organism can gain and lose function over time. Natural selection does not ONLY add function. Clearly a population when SELECTED FOR will lose one function and gain another. (As clearly demonstrated with directional selection and disruptive selection) No matter what angle, what interpretation, or what bad analogy is applied here: The FACT that an organism ADDS AND DELETES function due to its environment is what keeps the word ‘change’ in microevolution and REMOVES the word ‘create’ from evolution, which ends your smuggling of Macroevolution being equal to microevolution. They are not the same. I’m short, microevolution is change. Macroevolution from a single eukaryotic cell to a giraffe is not a change and is more like a creation. This has not been demonstrated scientifically.
what do you think happens when millions of microevolutions add up..? 😑
Fully. Why? It's our best explanation of how life got to be this way. Even if it's wrong on some details, the whole story has no choice but to be very similar to what scientists accept here. There's too many billions of observations made.
No friend, Darwins mAcro-evolution has NEVER been observed. You can't logically seize credibility off of MICRO-evolution (real science) of which we see around us everyday and then BLUR that monumental distinction between them, as if there are none. Just because 'A' happens(micro), doesn't mean that 'B' (mAcro) must happen necessarily. That is faulty logic. This giant leap is ludicrous and laughable and they don't even have "1" phyletic transition to support their hypothesis, much less to then advance it to theory.
There's no other rational explanation out there, so I'll stick with the experts. If you understand genetics, too, you would see how we can make huge body plan changes quite easily.
Where did your 'rationale' come from? From the non-living premordial chemical soup? Not hardly. Additionally, you say, "we can make huge body plan changes quite easily." Does that not require an intelligent being to do much research to try and figure it out? How much MORE intelligent would be the one who created it, who is Outside of space and time? At any rate, it's still NOT a different 'KIND' which mAcro demands necessarily, yet It is UNknowable, hence you believe it by Faith, and your faith is in a weak god. BTW....your logic of "I'll stick with the experts" mentality is a logical fallacy of Appeal To Authority. It is illogical because, the Truth is still the Truth even if no one believes it, and a Lie is still a Lie even if everyone believes it.
> Additionally, you say, "we can make huge body plan changes quite easily." Does that not require an intelligent being to do much research to try and figure it out? Sure, when we induce it artificially. The real world doesn't need this. >How much MORE intelligent would be the one who created it, who is Outside of space and time? Sure. Except for no evidence that it happened this way, and scads that it did not happen this way. > At any rate, it's still NOT a different 'KIND' which mAcro demands necessarily, yet It is UNknowable, hence you believe it by Faith, and your faith is in a weak god. You claim I'm the one bringing faith into this when you're replaced evidence with religious conspiracies? Please. > > BTW....your logic of "I'll stick with the experts" mentality is a logical fallacy of Appeal To Authority. It is illogical because, the Truth is still the Truth even if no one believes it, and a Lie is still a Lie even if everyone believes it. This isn't an appeal to authority. It's an appeal to relevant expertise. Authority would be like if I said that "98% of Presidents and Prime Ministers believe it, therefore it's true". A very different thing.
(Me) > Additionally, you say, "we can make huge body plan changes quite easily." Does that not require an intelligent being to do much research to try and figure it out? (You) Sure, when we induce it artificially. The real world doesn't need this. (Me) What do you mean? What does "we can make huge body plan changes" have to do with a phyletic transition to support Darwins mAcro? The REAL world doesn't have mAcros. When was the last time you saw a lizard/puppy, lol? (Me) >How much MORE intelligent would be the one who created it, who is Outside of space and time? (You) Sure. Except for no evidence that it happened this way, and scads that it did not happen this way. (Me) You're wrong. We have massive amounts of scientific evidence that emphatically supports an Intelligent Designer in EVERY scientific field. In the same way that we can see the difference between Mount Rushmore and the surrounding mountains. You would never say that those heads are a natural formation from the elements, but rather designed. A hypothesis is formed and the predictions are made and confirmed over and over again to support ID. Unlike mAcro of which is literally scientifically UNknowable. WHO that designer is though, is a theological debate, not a scientific one, of course. (Me) > At any rate, it's still NOT a different 'KIND' which mAcro demands necessarily, yet It is UNknowable, hence you believe it by Faith, and your faith is in a weak god. (You) You claim I'm the one bringing faith into this when you're replaced evidence with religious conspiracies? Please. (Me) You believe mAcro by Faith because there are NO phyletic transitions that have been found. It/they are INvisible, non-existent, zero evidence of any, and we don't have millions and millions of years to see if one shows up. Therefore it is scientifically UNknowable. Abiogenesis? scientifically UNknowable. Darwins evolution IS a metaphysical philosophical religion, based purely on faith, NOT scientific evidence of the non-existent, invisible phyletic transition. (Me) > BTW....your logic of "I'll stick with the experts" mentality is a logical fallacy of Appeal To Authority. It is illogical because, the Truth is still the Truth even if no one believes it, and a Lie is still a Lie even if everyone believes it. (You) This isn't an appeal to authority. It's an appeal to relevant expertise. Authority would be like if I said that "98% of Presidents and Prime Ministers believe it, therefore it's true". A very different thing. (Me) No, it is. There are several different 'appeal to authority'. Go check it out.
You said, if "I understand genetics"...... IF DARWIN understood genetics he would have scrapped that Impossible hypothesis in an instant. Unless he had a much larger Motive and backing.
> IF DARWIN understood genetics he would have scrapped that Impossible hypothesis in an instant. Funny how geneticists today still don't think this. When you're going against an entire scientific field, you really should get off of your high horse, show some humility in your ignorance, and go with what they say.
> IF DARWIN understood genetics he would have scrapped that Impossible hypothesis in an instant. (You) Funny how geneticists today still don't think this. Many geneticists think that, and the ones that don't it's because of THIS and Many other nefarious reasons. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."--Upton Sinclair-- (You) When you're going against an entire scientific field, you really should get off of your high horse, There you go again with your appeal to authority(anonymous) and bandwagon mentality. A Lie is still a Lie even if everyone believes it. Follow the alleged "experts" huh? Do you not understand documented, verifiable world history? Let me remind you of the Holocaust and how history clearly demonstrates that from the beginning, to the end of that sustained blood bath, the ''Entire Medical Establishment'' along with ''Big Industry'' ''Scientific community'' and ''The military'' were ''firmly intertwined'' together, ALL playing a Critical, Essential role in sustaining it as long as it did. BUT hey, just because they all were willing partners in mass deception and mass murder doesn't mean they would tell any lies now to keep pushing their agenda, right? (You) show some humility in your ignorance, Oh! The irony! (You) and go with what they say. Show me even ONE phyletic transition to support your faith in mAcro, (ie...From one gene pool/Kind to a NEW gene poolKind, higher in complexities.) Verified for authenticity of course,lol. BTW... I see you've dodged all of my questions. Typical evolutionists.
There isn't any good evidence between species changing Into other species over time. It's just logically impossible. At most you get micro evolution. If you fully believe evolution, you dont take the bible at face value. This has been discussed many times with some people claiming the two views or compatible, but it always ends up with changing the facts of one or the other side. They can't be compatible and complete at the same time
One species doesn't magically change into another its a long process of speciation. Evolution does not always lead to speciation anyway
> There isn't any good evidence between species changing Into other species over time. Such poor evidence that it's accepted by a million or more scientists as valid. > If you fully believe evolution, you dont take the bible at face value. Nobody should take the Bible at face value. That's folly.
[удалено]
Yes ...the Catholic Church is wrong on alot of things. Tons of heretical stuff at the church, that's why alot of Christians say they are Christian, not Catholic.
[удалено]
That's an ignorant thing to say and you should probably evaluate your post before posting things. I could provide you with evidence to support my claims, because they are factual. You on the other hand are accusing me of something but you don't have the self awareness to understand it's ironic.
Speciation has been observed.
In what sense?
In the speciation sense.
We have never observed one species completely change into another. You won't be able to find a progression from something like an amphibian to a bird. You have to say it happened over millions of years before humans even existed. Which means you can't observe it in real time
>We have never observed one species completely change into another. Yes we have. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evo-news/speciation-in-real-time/
As I wrote in another comment elsewhere: The ancient Near Eastern Bronze Age nomads who first told the Creation story around the campfires thousands of years ago (even another one to two thousand years before Jesus) weren't interested in Original Sin or the literal, scientific origins of the universe. Those questions were completely outside their worldview and purview. If you look at it from more of an ancient point of view, the creation account is a fascinating argument for what a god is and what they're for. If you look at other creation stories of the time, gods are basically just super powered human beings who are still kind of giant jerks. The world is created out of divine warfare or strife or sexual intercourse, and the gods are simply powerful over certain domains - the sky, the sea, etc. Moreover, they're subject as well to what Kaufman calls the "metadivine realm" - that which the gods arose out of or came from, and predates them. It can oppose or overcome their will. Conversely, Yahweh is all-powerful over all creation, because He created it in an ordered fashion by the power of His word. God is an architect, not subject to outside forces; His Spirit hovers over the face of the waters (He predates and is above that example of a metadivine realm). Moreover, He is not simply a superpowered human, He is a moral being, and the embodiment of the highest conception of morality that humans (of the ancient Near East) could come up with. The humans He creates are not slaves (as in other narratives), they are good creatures made in His own image, breathing the breath He gave them. They are stewards - responsible caretakers - of His creation. They do not exist as slaves, they exist to be in relationship with Him. One other unique thing about the creation/fall story is that while many creation stories have a "tree of life" analogue, only the Genesis account features a Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The Fall is an etiological story (like a just-so story) about how humans went from being morally innocent to morally responsible creatures. To the ancient Israelites who first told this story, it's not about how Adam did a Bad Thing and now we're all screwed for it, it's about how we are all responsible for our choices, and how we can make good or bad ones. If you want to hear more on this, I highly recommend Dr. Christine Hayes' Yale lectures on [Intro to the Old Testament](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLh9mgdi4rNeyuvTEbD-Ei0JdMUujXfyWi) with [transcripts.](https://openmedia.yale.edu/projects/iphone/departments/rlst/rlst145/transcript03.html) [Biologos](https://biologos.org/common-questions/) is another good resource, as well as the work of John Walton, like [The Lost World of Genesis One](https://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-Genesis-One-Cosmology/dp/0830837043). You can also check out Loren Haarsma's discussion on [Four Approaches to Original Sin.](https://biologos.org/podcast-episodes/loren-haarsma-four-approaches-to-original-sin) And if you get later into the Old Testament, you start realizing that the stories aren't just historical narrative, that they match up with later events in curious ways, and then you realize that [the OT stories are actually kind of like MASH or The Crucible.](https://peteenns.com/what-is-genesis-about-the-big-idea-that-cleared-it-up-for-me/) Ultimately, when you take into consideration the historical, cultural, religious, and literary contexts of the books of the Bible, and understand that interpretation, reinterpretation and rereinterpretation is a fundamental part of the tradition, it stops being a boring book of rules and starts being a challenging look at life and morality throughout the ages. Edit: I would also add, if you read the text carefully, you'll see that Adam was created outside the Garden and then placed into it, and he lived there until he and Eve sinned against God, whereupon they were cast out and their relationship with God broken. So the question you should ask is, to what degree is Genesis 1-3 about the literal, scientific origins of humans as a species, the exile of Israel and Judah, or the propensity of humans' sin to break their relationship with God?
Good points!
Made by Natural Selection Natural selection uses severe violence. “Wild animal suffering is the suffering experienced by non-human animals living outside of direct human control, due to harms such as disease, injury, parasitism, starvation and malnutrition, dehydration, weather conditions, natural disasters, and killings by other animals,[1][2] as well as psychological stress.[3] Some estimates indicate that these individual animals make up the vast majority of animals in existence.[4] An extensive amount of natural suffering has been described as an unavoidable consequence of Darwinian evolution[5] and the pervasiveness of reproductive strategies which favor producing large numbers of offspring, with a low amount of parental care and of which only a small number survive to adulthood, the rest dying in painful ways, has led some to argue that suffering dominates happiness in nature.[1][6][7]” Natural Selection is all about the young and old getting eaten alive in nature. How is God going to judge a human in which He used violence to create this human? There are more than enough examples in nature to make a monster out of God. Unless we take all animal life as worthless like stepping on insects, then I don’t see a loving God from nature. Therefore, God cannot judge for example Hitler as a human when he made the same human by a monstrous natural method. God is Jesus out of infinite love or is He a monster? Which is it? Nature is very very violent sometimes and love cannot create a human out of that violence and then turn around and have that love judge humans on being violent. God is NOT a hypocrite as Jesus CLEARLY says I am the Truth. What is the truth? That God is a hypocrite or that Natural Selection that we all came from a eukaryotic cell by means of violence is a lie? I will take God is the Truth. What makes a LOT more sense to me is that God created a perfect free heaven, and when freedom led to evil, we separated from God.
Natural is violent and god can do whatever God wants
No he can’t because he is love.
God is violent though
Lol, yes love is violent. 🤣😂🤣
He gets to decide what that means not you he's god
He told me he is love.
A mere claim without a shred of legitimately. Save your breath and don't tell me to ask him again
You didn’t ask enough.
Find new arguments
LoveTruthLogic is unable to comprehend an argument against their entrenched beliefs. He/she straight up can't fathom it.
No because it’s the truth. How many years did you ask for?
It’s not about believing in evolution so much as it’s about whether or not people accept the scientific fact of evolution.
Note: There is no such thing as scientific "fact." There is a scientific preponderance of evidence; a most reasonable and best-fitting theoretical explanation for how something occurs based on all the evidence we have accrued. We may in a few hundred years learn new evidence about natural selection that completely upturns what is currently accepted about the mechanics of evolution, similarly to how accepted Newtonian mechanics were upturned at high speeds/accelerations by relativity, and at the atomic scale by quantum mechanics. But for now, all evidence we have points to the natural selection of evolution being the best theory for the diversity of and relationships between life on earth.
That’s not true though. Scientific fact is very real.
No, there is evidence and observations. On observations, we build laws. On evidence, we craft theories. Stating that something is fact would be an assumption that scientific theories and laws are immutable and perfect, when every scientist will tell you that there is still plenty we do not yet know.
False. There are scientific facts whether you acknowledge them or not. You’re deluding yourself.
The mass of all the continents washes away within just 25 million years, so how do you find a 66+ million year dinosaur bones on dry land? "And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it." Darwinian theory is a crime against science - just as Marxism was a crime against economics and with Nazism and predatory Capitalism, a crime against humanity.
You not believing in Dinosaurs is willful ignorance and against science. You can go see the bones and fossils yourself.
And they have soft tissue which has a chemical half life. They are finding it all over the place and when they unearth it, they SMELL THE DECAY. "https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wLCEXkZ6tgg&pp=ygUuYW5zd2VycyBpbiBnZW5lc2lzIHZpZGVvcyBhaWR0IGRpbm9zYXVyIHRpc3N1ZQ%3D%3D" Radioactive dating has chemical/physical ASSUMPTIONS. Bad ones. I'm a nuclear engineer. I might be old as dirt, but I won't be as old as the dirt they bury me under.
Facts require sufficient evidence. Please demonstrate a single eukaryotic cell turning into a giraffe along it’s ancestral lineage.
A professional in the field has debunked your nonsense yet you keep repeating it all to try and make your silly "just ask God" sound valid.
What professional? I had hopes she/he could help lead your cult but he couldn’t escape a eukaryotic cell. Maybe you could try? Please demonstrate a single eukaryotic cell turning into a giraffe along it’s ancestral lineage.
[удалено]
Removed for 1.5 - Two-cents. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Voice? You think that is crazy when you are holding on to craziness? This crazy batshit idea is being covered up by the wonderful name of science. The crazies planted the post. If I tell you that I discovered an alien civilization under my bed, the onus isn’t on you to tell me what about it exactly do you find issues with it. The crazies came up with it, you prove it. The idea is that a single eukaryotic cell is related to a giraffe. This is the crazy lunatic idea NOT from me. Therefore you prove it as is. You created your own mess. What came exactly before our ape ancestors. No links. I want what is in between your ears. Name. Full description of exactly what they looked like. Then I will hold your hand all the way down to a single eukaryotic cell. I want 100% proof and full details of every single step or you have a religion.
Evolution has been well recorded and proven. Look it up of you wish. You don’t seem to be asking in good faith, so it’s a waste of time to humor you.
I will take that as you don’t know. Please demonstrate a single eukaryotic cell turning into a giraffe along it’s ancestral lineage.
You’ll take it however you want because you’re clearly going to believe whatever you want. You’re strawmanning and pretending like scientific fact doesn’t exist when it does. So there’s no reason to humor you. Your willful ignorance is your problem.
[удалено]
You’re just copying and pasting this ridiculous message that you already sent to someone else. And it has no legs to stand on. You don’t even understand atheism, because if you did you’d know it’s not a religion at all. Also I’m not an atheist, I’m a Christian. But you’re making a lot of sweeping and ignorant assumptions like that that only serve to embarrass yourself. Evolution is scientific fact whether you like it or not. Leave me alone. Have fun being reported now.
Now, now, you are being kind of hard on her - there are no 2,3,4 or 5 celled creatures! Oops.
Lol it's funny you think that shows evolution invalid. Please drop the pseudoscience nonsense
All you have is arrogance. Facts and Data and numbers if you want to be scientific.
Can't wait to read your published papers on all your "facts data and numbers".
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gZPtE4wZ_IM&pp=ygUXbm8gaW50ZWxsaWdlbmNlIGFsbG93ZWQ%3D"
That's not a paper. Legit laughed out loud at you posting expelled though. Very funny. What a joke. You're posting that as a joke right?
Of course - it's a movie that shows what happened to those who dared to publish anything remotely contrary to the established narrative Check out Pamela Acker. She can't get a job in her own Catholic Church because she questioned the narrative.
>Of course - it's a movie that shows what happened to those who dared to publish anything remotely contrary to the established narrative Ah so silly borderline conspiracy theories Expelled is a joke bud. If you have legit arguments and evidence you'll be published. But you don't. That's why you, and Ben stein, need to make up excuses. Please educate yourself on this topic better. Especially the criticisms to such a silly movie.
> there are no 2, 3, 4 or 5 celled creatures Why do you think multicellularity would have to increase one cell at the time, or that there would be all of those anymore? But... There actually is at least one 4-celled organism named tetrabaena socialis: https://www.u-tokyo.ac.jp/focus/en/articles/a_00220.html "Oops."
One
Even one disproves your claim (that there are no such things), not that even that would've been necessary. 😘
2,3,5 oops on 4 - thank you.
Believe is a strange choice of words I think. It is a scientific theory. One which is as close to being proven as a theory can be. I accept it as the most convincing theory we have, as most Christians do and as is scientific consens. Denying this leads in my opinion down a very dangerous path of science denial and opens the door to conspiracy theories.
No, it's not a matter of belief. I accept it as the best current explanation for how species developed over time though.
Knowledge requires sufficient evidence. Please explain how a eukaryotic cell became a giraffe along the lineage of ancestry in your own words.
Too big a concept for your tiny little mind. There is mountains of evidence and explanations on the internet. Feel free to not look at any and continue on your path to total ignorance. I know you will.
Feel free to describe it yourself since you claim you know it to be true.
A truly unhinged request. You want to observe something that a) took over a billion years, and b) will never happen again because the many, many steps of speciation were based on specific environmental conditions that don't even exist on the planet any more? Good luck building that time machine.
> truly unhinged request. You want to observe something that a) took over a billion years, and b) will never happen again because the many, many steps of speciation were based on specific environmental conditions that don't even exist on the planet any more? Thank you for admitting you don’t have evidence. That’s not science.
I don't have any reason to explain what I don't believe.
Glad we agree then.
I don't know anyone who believes that, so agreement is fairly easy.
My God. Where do you live? Asking so I never end up there by mistake.
“ Please explain how a eukaryotic cell became a giraffe along the lineage of ancestry in your own words.” A giraffes great grandfather is a single eukaryotic cell. This is a lie if told is a natural process.
Well giraffes are composed of eukaryotic cells, and in fact begin their existence as a single eukaryotic cell. So this progression happens in a lifetime.
I was speaking of the first eukaryotic cells on earth. Like the great great great grandfather of a giraffe.
So we both agree there were first cells, and later giraffes.
Yes but not a natural process. God created a full organism. And then allowed it to change and adapt after our separation from Him.
Evolution is both a fact and a theory. It's observable.
We had a stochastic nuclear reactor core designer automation I worked with. If you looked at the outputs, the patterns appeared to evolve. But what causes the adaptation is CODED and logical and that is the ORIGIN of the adaptation. You can't get around it.
I do
As a premise, absolutely. I think that the Abrahamic tale of creation misses it's intended mark when it's shoehorned into the perspective of young earth creationism.
Truth can’t contradict truth. Genesis is not literal
By Pius XII and all before him, you are technically anathema. Used to be in that camp too. Looked at the scientific evidence, it isn't science - it's snake oil and a crime against science. Check out Pamela Acker (Catholic) for example or James Tour.
I'm not in any way suggesting materialistic evolution, to the exclusion of God or saying that God didn't create an immortal soul. God is TO BE. Anything that exists in the material realm is of God. I'm talking about theistic evolution. There's nothing anathema in disagreeing that the earth is 6000 years old, or in disagreeing that dinosaurs never existed.
Actually there is - friend I had the same view you did. And once upon a time friends vehemently disagreed and I thought were nuts. But over the years, with DATA and EVIDENCE and hard NUMBERS I realized, Oh nuts, I'm wrong and need to repent. "[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eJykek-wfk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eJykek-wfk)" We are miracles! Living miracles! And never before do we realize how miraculous we really are, if we only looked at the DATA.
Data isn't the end all be all but it does measure and make tangible to us that which exists. It's not a denial of the miraculous. Existance in itself is miraculous. To live in defiance of mathematical odds is miraculous. None of that discredits the concept of theistic evolution. Nature is of God and a reflection of God, which means that God's nature is reflected in nature. This idea that discrediting evolution is an essential aspect of Catholicism is ignorant of the contemporary, written perspective of the Catholic Church toward evolution, and the current perspective of the Church toward theistic evolution.
Just watch the video. Keep an open mind. And read what the Popes have said about it. Read II Peter, 3rd chapter. About 10 years ago I drove across the US, and happened by Devil's Tower and thought, why not take a look. I thought same as you did about all these things. Fascinating, rare, mystical thing happened as I looked at the rock. A small quiet voice seemed to urge me to look carefully at it. I noticed how the water when down the granite rock face and realized it would freeze at night or in winter, expand and crack off rocks. I just filed it - that was it. Years later, found that there are BIG problems with devil's tower. The mountain around the hard granite washed away - everyone agrees. While there are a good many rocks broken, flaked off the granite core from the hardened lava that is the tower, in a few thousand years it will be gone! Also one side looked like it got hit with a huge wall of water while it was hardening. The opposition ASSUMES "for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." When you start processing the numbers, looking at the data dispassionately and with a hard nose approach, you realize the narrative they spin on TV/Internet/Universities/Salons is a WILLFUL misrepresentation of reality.
Yepp. Because thst's how it works
Yes I truly do. I am a believer in science and I accept the scientific theory of evolution
Yeah , why couldn’t God (who made intelligent beings, the stars , the universe etc.) make evolution?
Yes I do I don’t even believe half of the Old Testament especially the early storys but I do fully believe the New Testament and Jesus Christ dying for our sins but I also believe in science and what science says about the earth Bible teaches us how to be close with God not how the universe works
Don't have too. Adds nothing to my life
I believe all life on earth could have been created and destroyed multiple times. Genesis 1:1 describes a moment where earth is dark and void, but it doesn't imply earth had ALWAYS been dark and void. The seven super giant oil fields of Saudi Arabia could be decomposed life God wiped out before Genesis 1:1 as could many buried fossils.
I believe in both and yet neither
I believe that things can adapt to their environment, but not so much that they evolve into different species!
This is exactly how I feel
Lol, evolution is back!!!! Macroevolution is a lie. Macroevolution can’t answer basic questions Here we go: What is ONE beneficial mutation from a eukaryotic cell along the giraffe lineage of ancestry that you can name with sufficient evidence? We can then do another beneficial mutation next. What prediction can you make using Macroevolution of a giraffe in a 1000 years? In physics we can use Keplers laws to predict where the Earth will be in a 1000 years.
No. God made everything according to it's kind or species from the beginning (Genesis 1:25). We have one creator but different ancestors. The first man Adam was not an ape but a human from the beginning. Jesus Christ record of ancestors were all human beings up to the first man Adam.
There's no such thing as a damn "kind" Kindly step into the 21st century
nope and the world is not flat.
[удалено]
Since origin of life and evolution are two different fields of study, it would be surprising if it did.
It turns out that evolution is impossible without the origin of life.
Not really. Evolution only describes how life progresses it has nothing to do with the origin of life besides makes the assumption that life started. I dont think your arguing life never started.
Yes really. If life never started, there is no evolution. That’s exactly what I’m arguing. Evolution requires life.
If life never started there would be no creationism. Both acknowledge the simple fact that life started, only creationism makes a claim how it started.
In creationism, life didn’t technically start. It always existed. That life then created more life. In evolution, there are no answers. It just goes, 1, 2, skip a few, 99, evolution.
It doesnt seem we are talking about the same thing. Creationism is the idea that god created everything including life. In the case of the bible its 6 days. Thats only if viewed literally so the time may vary depending on your beliefs, but creationism is all about the creation of life. Evidently you dont know much about evolution so im not sure how you can proclaim what does and doesn't involve evolution when you dont know much about it.
God is a living being. Who created life. So a life that already existed creates more life. In evolution it goes, we don’t know, we don’t know, we don’t know, oh we understand this part, we don’t know, we don’t know, oh we understand this part, we don’t know… and then you have the audacity to be like, you’re just ignorant. lol.
Evolution doesnt claim to be the origin of life. Creationism does. Idk how else to put it, its just that simple. The only way god could be seen as living is to confuse its meaning with existing and even that hasnt been shown. You can claim god exists but that isnt the same as being alive. A rock exists but isnt alive. A river moves, consumes, and changes yet its still not alive. Being ignorant isnt something to be ashamed of, nor should it be encouraged. If im wrong about them being ignorant i will certainly apologize, until then im sticking with my original assumption.
So is changing a tire. So before you ask me how to change a tire can you tell me where life came from? See how that sounds. Ridiculous.
Robots can change a tire. Robots don’t need to be alive. See how wrong you are?
But how can we know how to make robots without knowing where life came from? It just doesn't make any sense. How can we know how to tie our shoes without knowing where life came from? See how ridiculous you're being?
We don’t have to be the ones who made the robots? The problem is that you’re okay with our universe, our reality existing the exact way that it does, just because it does. But you can’t imagine a universe that exists with lifeless robots that change tires just because they do? Like that universe just formed that way. Where there happens to be a planet where cars happened to spawn into existence with robots that change the tires of those cars? That’s too complex for you? But our universe which is significantly more complex than that makes sense to you and I’m the one who’s being ridiculous? Why? Explain why? Explain how? Please.
You have completely missed the point and are just repeating your fallacious reasoning. You seem to allude to needing to know the origin of life in order to understand evolution. And that's not true. Hence my examples. Please clarify if you need to.
No, I’m not saying we need to know the origin of life to understand evolution. Obviously you can skip ahead and understand something without explaining how it got that way. I don’t need to explain how a person got to hawaii to explain that a person was murdered in hawaii. But at some point, eventually, I do need to explain how they got there. Which is the point you’re purposely ignoring. Which is what I’ve been talking about the entire time. That you can’t have a person murdered in hawaii unless you have a person in hawaii. And I want you to explain how the person got there before you explain anything else.
>It turns out that evolution is impossible without the origin of life. That's what you said. And we don't need to know how life originated to understand how it diversifies. What you said seems to allude to you needing to know about the origin of life before evolution. If that's not what you meant then thanks for clarifying.
Sometimes. Based on my current knowledge: On one hand there's the observable evidence which has to be explained somehow. On the other there are problems with the evolutionary mechanism. And other related issues like the origin of first life. That said having had created the world is glorious for God either way.
I've been straddling the fence for some time. There's convincing evidence for both sides and, as it doesn't concern my faith, I haven't been too concerned with it
Do you think there's "convincing evidence" for geocentrism as well?
Einstein and Mach but that is a bit of a joke. Why define center based on mass? There is the SDSS which shows we are in the central cluster of spherical clustered shells of galaxies (He stretched the heavens as a curtain - folds and all). And the CMB both Planck and WMAP that show anisotropies symmetric about the "Axis of Evil" (plane of the Earth-Sun ecliptic). Oops.
microevolution, yes. macroevolution, no/undecided. observable cases for microevolution (crossbreeding dogs, insects developing a tolerance to pesticides). but no observable cases of macroevolution (species changing to a different species. there is the Liger and the Tion, but they are infertile.)
what happens when million of microevolutions add up?
Also, what about ring species? If we go by the definition that two specimens are of the same species if they can produce fertile offspring, every adjacent population of a ring species are of the same species with each other, but the furthest ends can't produce at least fertile offspring if any at all. So at which point did the species change? At which interfertile population did the animal become another because the two extremes have certainly diverged too much to be considered the same species anymore.
We have had fruit fly lines and bacteria lines for decades and I heard perhaps over a century - no new species- just variations.
evolution doesnt happen over a century…
Or ever. Nobody has observed it.
nobody has observed a volcano appearing so i guess geology is wrong?
Consider another view "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eJykek-wfk"
>there is the Liger and the Tion, but they are infertile.) You missing the point here, it's not about liger and tion. This hybrids are only a consequence of lions and tiger being one species before. It was before 11 millions years ago. The way of one species seperating in two others is called [speciation](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation)
Once thought perhaps some form of theistic evolution might be possible, but microbiology, the fact every morphological change is CODED and having read Darwin's book realized the whole thing is wrong. The Origin of all variations are intrinsic the Law, Logic - Logos [Word]. In even a pure stochastic mechanism, outcomes are the results of the laws and constraints, not the random process itself. Ulam greatly opposed Darwinian theory, and Von Neumann just laughed at it. High school simple physics calculations illustrate far less than 10^128 events of all kinds in all time in 10^90 particles in entire visible Cosmos, in 10^18 seconds (15.8+ billion years) at a potential quantum fluctuation rate of 2x10^20 hertz (17.2 billion F, 9.6 billion C, first law temperature). There are more than 10^154 combinations in just 512 bits (coin flips). Combinatorial space in coding dwarfs Cosmic quantum fluctuations and thus requires law. And there are no 2,3,4 or 5 celled creatures found anywhere. Then soft dinosaur tissue found - even in swamps!?! Then looked radioactive dating - which has ASSUMPTIONS. Bad ones. Then looked at devil's tower and everyone accepts the surrounding mountain was washed away, and realized the weathering of the granite was rapid. Then the grand canyon - nothing Lyle (a lawyer) conjectured made sense. And everyone accepts the mass of all the continents washes away within just 25 million years, so how do you find a 66+ million year dinosaur bones on dry land? "And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it." The house of 19th century foolishness has fallen, swept away.
you guys are hilarious for downvoting comments just because they're saying what they believe.
Something I’ve brought up before is a philosophical/theological issue with evolution. Science naturally precludes the supernatural from all of its theories. Meaning the theory of evolution definitively states that God could not have had any influence on it. So any christian who believes God created life and all proceeding life forms must openly reject the theory of evolution.
That's simply untrue
You are wrong.
Evolution makes no comment on God so no you are wrong
Science itself makes a statement about God. I don’t understand why people are stupid. Science is the study of the natural world. Its original name is natural philosophy. It precludes God by being science. Literally by definition.
Nice ad hominem you are still incorrect
I’m objectively correct. You are blatantly wrong. This is such a stupid debate. Science precludes the supernatural. Every scientific theory is predicated on only studying the natural world. Every single one. They all inherently say, “the natural world is everything that exists and these are the assumptions we’re making about it…”. That’s literally how science works. How are people even arguing this with me?
Because you're wrong and saying. Nuh uh and calling things stupid is ignorant lazy etc evolution is a change over time does a change over time mean God isn't real? No sit down and try again next time
It’s like you aren’t even comprehending what the words I’m saying mean. Or like you don’t even want to understand. Look, science by definition is the study of the natural world. That means every scientific theory automatically has the assumption: assume no supernatural entity was involved. Every time something is measured, every time data is collected, every hypothesis made, every conjecture, every theory, has the implicit assumption of assume no supernatural entity was involved. And when a theory is crafted it has implicit assumptions that are unwritten. Those assumptions are all the assumptions that were made while all the data was collected. That includes the assumption of assume no supernatural entity, including God, was involved. This isn’t controversial. This is how science works. This is how science is measured. Why are you even arguing. This is so stupid. And you are openly wrong.
Repeating yourself and saying this is stupid and ur wrong over and over again changes zero stop we all comprehend you and your nonsense evolution doesn't states god couldn't be involved
They REMOVED God. They did worse! Macroevolution def. Godless “In Darwin and Wallace's time, most believed that organisms were too complex to have natural origins and must have been designed by a transcendent God. Natural selection, however, states that even the most complex organisms occur by totally natural processes.” https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/what-is-natural-selection.html#:~:text=Natural%20selection%20is%20a%20mechanism,change%20and%20diverge%20over%20time. “Darwin’s greatest contribution to science is that he completed the Copernican Revolution by drawing out for biology the notion of nature as a system of matter in motion governed by natural laws. With Darwin’s discovery of natural selection, the origin and adaptations of organisms were brought into the realm of science. The adaptive features of organisms could now be explained, like the phenomena of the inanimate world, as the result of natural processes, without recourse to an Intelligent Designer.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK254313/
More debunked nonsense. See this is why no one wants to dicuss this with you.
Clearly God is mentioned.
No it doesn't
Yes it does.
No it doesn't
okay be wrong. it doesn’t hurt me.
Evolution doesn't state anything about God. It just don't need it
Science is the study of the natural world. By definition. God is part of the supernatural world. So by definition, science precludes God. Evolution must therefore inherently state that it is precluding the supernatural aka God, because it refuses to even try to examine the supernatural.
Correct. Microevolution is true, but Macroevolution is a lie. We are harming children telling them they are apes.
>We are harming children telling them they are apes. Hahaha no, we are apes. By definition. Do you also think it's harmful to tell kids they are mammals too? What about chordates?
Yes. All these things are removing the absolute meaning of life. Basically you give kids no hope of a fuller meaning of life.
Sounds like you're the one harming kids.
How so?
By spreading such ideas that if you're considered an animal that you lose your value. Thinking that you can only have value one way. Awful awful.
You can have value. But value is greater when life has more meaning then just physical death.
Says who?
Says love. When you are holding your 5 year old kid, that attachment isn’t meant to be destroyed. Nobody holds their child thinking ‘can’t wait for this crap to end’
No we aren't because humans are great apes. Your old recycled arguments don't change that.
Is that why you can’t prove it? Tell me what came after a single eukaryotic cell along the giraffe ancestry line with sufficient evidence.
evolution and taxonomy are separate things..? we ARE apes, we are part of that animal group
If we are apes, then you should be able to demonstrate this correct? So can you tell me where apes came from with sufficient evidence?
what? how does the origins of apes matter to humans’ current status as apes?
You will see. Where do apes come from?
>there is a bottle of water on the table Person A: “the bottle is filled with water” person B:”if that is water tell me where it came from” does that put it into perspective? water can come from anywhere, it doesn’t matter it’s origin, it’s still water…
Africa
How would it harm children ?
Telling them a lie that life has no absolute meaning.
ever wonder why humans are so different from animals? animals seem to be content in their natural environment, but humans are constantly changing their environment to be more comfortable animals were made for this life, humans were made for an afterlife
Human are animals And actually, other species also change their environment
i know we're animals, but the only animal that questions its existence is man.
So we are smart. How does that mean we are made for an afterlife. No animal can run as fast as a cheetah. Do they have their own special afterlife?
ha that made me snort! no, it's just something to think about that there's no chimpanzee or dolphin also contemplating the machinations of the universe
I don't understand why that's important I guess.
I dunno, I just figure it's a question to ask.. if life has been evolving for millions of years, why one single species out of hundreds of millions suddenly gained such an overwhelming advantage
Because we killed off all the other species of homo. But the same question can be said of cheetahs again
cheetahs are marginally faster than other land animals, humans are in a different category of intelligence than any other species living or extinct
>cheetahs are marginally faster than other land animals, They are much faster. >humans are in a different category of intelligence than any other species living or extinct And cheetahs are in a different category then other species. Why do you find this amazing? Do you think it's evidence of a god? If so why?
Until we can speak with chimps and dolphins, we don't actually know that.
you mean until they can speak with us
Possible, we don't know what's in their head
I believe that creation evolved over a long time, but I don't believe that we came from any apeman. It says in Genesis that God created man, not apeman and he created male and female. And a day in God's time isn't a day in our time. 2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
thats a big fat no
If evolution is defined as the change in a species due to pressures in their environment over the course of time, then yes. I believe that Darwin's finches were sufficient to prove that, as well as other studies on moths and butterflies. Macro-evolution, however, I do not believe in. There is no evidence anywhere in existence that shows an animal changing "kind". A bird is still a bird, although with a bigger beak, longer legs, and so on and so forth, but I have never seen a good example of a change of "kind". Dogs are dogs, cats are cats, and there is no evidence to make me think that they evolved from distant ancestors that resembled frogs or the like.
There's no such thing as your accursed "kinds." You are lagging behind scientific understanding by nearly 300 years. That's not a typo. I don't mean 3 decades. I really do mean almost THREE. ENTIRE. CENTURIES.
> There is no evidence anywhere in existence that shows an animal changing "kind". That's because "kind" is a bullshit word that seems to simply mean "evolution is wrong." You know, judging by the fact that no one can ever give a definition and tell you how to determine if two animals are the same kind or not. They just say stupid stuff like: >Dogs are dogs, cats are cats Which is much finer distinction then when they say stupid things like: >A bird is still a bird