Most evolutionists hinge on some belief about shared ancestry. This DOES NOT prove evolution. It's backwards. There is NO evidence for a working, functional evolution. And, in fact, all of the "evidence" for common ancestry can be attributed to common Design elements. If you can't solve the problem going forward, to where it actually becomes useful, and real, then you believe in a new age fairy tale, taken all together. A false religion of so-called science that is a DILLUSION. Fate is not without a sense of irony, I suppose. The Bible has always made the same claim about what it is, and where it comes from, and still stands firm on testable, repeatable, observable scientific phenomena.
Comments (76)
sorted by:
The bible is scientifically sound (the book where it rains for 40 days straight and floods the entire world and then just evaporates in one day) but heredity is not scientifically sound (even though animals and plants have been selectively bred for centuries by humans)? You must be an anti-science troll.
The flood happened over a 150 day period and only at that point did the top of a mountain get exposed. If you want to criticize something, know it first. And where do we find fossils of sea life? On the tops of every mountain in the world.
Robert, look into Answersingenesis.org to really strengthen your view on this. The high mountains we have now were most likely created when God caused the waters to recede into the ocean basins, lowering them. I've been looking at this for a while, and have tried to find every hard question about this topic. . . the Bible is sound. We don't have an absolutely clear picture of all, but from what we have in the Bible, there is a case for feasibility, and logically, it is the strongest Origins claim.
Psalms 104:6-9 Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains. At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.
https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/psalm-104-flood-or-day-three-of-creation-week/
I could teach a course on the subject. I spent years debating atheists on the flood.
Oh, okay. I've been at this for a while myself. Party on.
Heredity? Lol. Breeding animals and agriculture? Are those examples of evolution as described by Darwin? You're in over your head with this topic.
The Theory of Evolution is blatantly flawed and is a lie as it is taught today. No more true than the theory of "fossil fuels"
When we selectively breed we are creating an artificial selective pressure that allows us to sculpt species to our needs over time.
Nature does this too - just by dint of these creatures having to live in an environment. The environment shapes them.
In only a few thousand years humans have taken wolves and turned them into chihuahuas and Great Danes and dachshunds and pit bulls.
But canines remain canines, germs remain germs. The horizontal variability is probably infinite, for all intents and purposes, but the scam and illusion of the story of evolution is that this goes upward, building new body plans incrementally. So, because phenotypes, in their variability, can overlap among creatures (as would be expected for form, function, and environments), the evolutionary assumption is made. It's wrong. I can see how it is seeming, but when you look at what we know now, about the difficulty and complexity in the simplest of lifeforms, of heredity, the assumption should be clearly seen as unsupportable.
You are not really understanding that those classifications of "dog" or really the entire idea of Linean classification was a misunderstanding of life.
We can look at the genetic code as we look at software revisions and see very clearly what families of what animals emerged from common ancestors because the code that makes up "dog" has a HUGE amount of overlap for the code that makes up "wolf" - we know they had a common ancestor because we can see how the code tree branches when we look at large numbers of individual "dog" instances.
But the idea of "dog" is not the same as the idea of "car". EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE OF AN INDIVIDUAL IS COMPLETELY UNIQUE.
Even identical twins with the majority of the same code will have variations that make a difference. Those differences - very very small changes - accumulate.
Its not at all. Its highly constrained. For instance - if you have a change in code that causes the centrioles to not be able to form - the cells that result cannot bootstrap into an organism.
We cannot interbreed with Chimpanzess because we have 2 genes that match 2 of theirs but ours are fused into one chromosome. Because the large scale organization of the codebase has that difference - even though the majority of the code in the files is the same - there is no way to recombine to make a viable hybrid cell.
This is not true at all. There is no "upward". Your cells do build you incrementally - starting from one cell and bootstrapping to 150 trillion - but each organism that is alive is just the lastest test of that instance of life. It might have a change that gives it a 1% advantage at having offspring - and over time the genes that code for that 1% chance will become prevalent in the population.
The genes make the body.
There is no such thing as a "creature". Every instance of "cat" is just a generalization of a large class of genes that when run together will build out a cat. But the variation between "cat" and non "cat" begins only when the combination of two sets do not produce viable offspring.
But you are making a fundamental error in understanding when you think that any lifeform's label matters. It does not matter at all. The concept of species does not depend on how something looks. It depends on whether or not two instances of an animal can replicate. If they cannot - they are different species.
Heredity is the physical process of evolution, an offspring's genes created from a mixing of the DNA of both parents. Darwin in particular focused on natural selection via adaptation, which is likely the form of evolution most responsible for species differentiation. Natural selection is one type of evolution, as is artificial selection (breeding of animals).
Yes, natural selection and adaptation are all observable, natural processes. Artificial selection too, is observable and has been known by mankind for thousands of years. Species differentation is not species derivation however - far from it. The Lie, and what Darwin is most known for, is what you aren't addressing with your copy pasta reply.
Copy pasta? I wrote all that myself. :(
What lie? That species descended from other species based on adaptations to their environment? That is where the evidence points. The only possible issue there is with species classification, there is not a clear dividing line between species like we would want. But if rather than saying "species" you use "group of animals" then I don't know what part of evolution you would argue about?
All the change we observe is horizontal. There is nothing in biology that shows vertical change is possible. Horizontal can be thought of as the range between a wolf and a poodle, and vertical as a wolf to cougar. So there is overlapping variability.
The water is in the ocean, guy. If you want to learn something and not be a stupid jerk, try Answersingenesis.org. You can find answers to probably every question in the creation/evolution discussion.