Total Posts:85|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Wnope's Evolution Corner

Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 1:11:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I've been lurking for some time, but the utter state of degradation this forum has found itself has drawn me out.

I see threads devoted to reproducing Hovind's arguments. Threads about how a cambrian explosion cannot be explained by evolution (which is only a problem for those who are unfamiliar with the evolution of phlyogenic bodyplans).

Threads about how high school text book's inappropriate use of scientific metaphors qualifies as disqualifying the ground basis of modern science.

Get this straight. Physics, astronomy, biology, and chemistry must be FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG in order for a Young Earth Creationist viewpoint. Gap Creationism has a pass on astronomy, but it still loses physics, biology, and chemistry.

You cannot simultaneously say "we know mtDNA mutates without recombination at relatively stable rates" and then deny that mtDNA is an indicator for our most recent Mitochondrial Eve (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

You cannot simultaneously say "behavoiral and allopatric speciation have been witnessed both in laboratories and in the wild" and then say "its impossible to create species."

You cannot simultaneously say "the universe is six thousand years old, and physics with regard to the speed of light, gravity, and black body radiation is true."

Ditch science if you want, but don't claim to be some sort of academically-sound fence sitter.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 1:20:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The strongest evidence for Evolutionary Theory, the part that modern science rests upon, is the twin nested hierarchy. It is empirically falsifiable, has been confirmed on countless occasions using phylogeny.

http://www.talkorigins.org...

However, the twin nested hierarchy gets STRONGER when you overlay the hierarchy with all known information on morphological and molecule parahomologies.

http://www.talkorigins.org...

It is FURTHER strengthened when you overlay all known examples of endogenous retrovirues, transposons, pseudogenes, satellite sequences, and other DNA markers that show with near statistical certainty when certain species diverged (i.e. if species A and B has retrovirus C, and species D is related but lacks the retrovirus, A and B had a closer evolutionary path (all other things equal) than A and D.

The "fossil record" is icing on the cake. Since advances in molecular biology, the fossil record has become more of a "pat on the back" confirmation than anything else.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 1:32:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
And for the record, there is absolutely nothing inconsistent about being a religious Christian who believes in Evolution.

Same way there's nothing inconsistent about being a religious Christian and believing the world isn't a flat circle with an extra layer of firmament and water in the sky (see Genesis 1:6).
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 2:27:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/17/2012 1:59:25 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Yeah? Well, if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? Check and mate, evilutionists.

Scientists may say that evolution is true, but ALL of the creationist websites I visit say that evolution is NOT true! Checkmate, evilutionists!
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 3:40:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/17/2012 1:59:25 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Yeah? Well, if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? Check and mate, evilutionists.

lol I know you're being facetious but I saw someone respond the other day "If Americans came from British people, why are there still British people?" :p

It boggles my mind that people deny evolution but what's worse is when those same people claim to be scientific. What is the threshold to accept something as evidence? You might as well throw all science out the window.
yang.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 4:28:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think part of the problem is that many people who interpret everything in the Bible literally. So they feel the need to attack it with feeble argumentation.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 9:39:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/17/2012 3:40:31 PM, tulle wrote:

lol I know you're being facetious but I saw someone respond the other day "If Americans came from British people, why are there still British people?" :p

I always enjoy the response, "If God made us from dirt, why is there still dirt?" lol
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 5:28:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/17/2012 1:20:15 PM, Wnope wrote:
The strongest evidence for Evolutionary Theory, the part that modern science rests upon, is the twin nested hierarchy. It is empirically falsifiable, has been confirmed on countless occasions using phylogeny.

http://www.talkorigins.org...

However, the twin nested hierarchy gets STRONGER when you overlay the hierarchy with all known information on morphological and molecule parahomologies.

http://www.talkorigins.org...

It is FURTHER strengthened when you overlay all known examples of endogenous retrovirues, transposons, pseudogenes, satellite sequences, and other DNA markers that show with near statistical certainty when certain species diverged (i.e. if species A and B has retrovirus C, and species D is related but lacks the retrovirus, A and B had a closer evolutionary path (all other things equal) than A and D.

The "fossil record" is icing on the cake. Since advances in molecular biology, the fossil record has become more of a "pat on the back" confirmation than anything else.

If you're going to post this blasphemous bloviation, the least you could do is post in english so we can read it.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 7:47:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 5:28:34 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 11/17/2012 1:20:15 PM, Wnope wrote:
The strongest evidence for Evolutionary Theory, the part that modern science rests upon, is the twin nested hierarchy. It is empirically falsifiable, has been confirmed on countless occasions using phylogeny.

http://www.talkorigins.org...

However, the twin nested hierarchy gets STRONGER when you overlay the hierarchy with all known information on morphological and molecule parahomologies.

http://www.talkorigins.org...

It is FURTHER strengthened when you overlay all known examples of endogenous retrovirues, transposons, pseudogenes, satellite sequences, and other DNA markers that show with near statistical certainty when certain species diverged (i.e. if species A and B has retrovirus C, and species D is related but lacks the retrovirus, A and B had a closer evolutionary path (all other things equal) than A and D.

The "fossil record" is icing on the cake. Since advances in molecular biology, the fossil record has become more of a "pat on the back" confirmation than anything else.

If you're going to post this blasphemous bloviation, the least you could do is post in english so we can read it.

I'll tell you what I told DanT (who has yet to respond).

While a creationist would expect to find general equivalence when making a big tree of animal morphology and then layering a big with how different genetics are between animal, twin nested hierarchies is significantly more complicated.

Here's the single nested hierarchy for morphology-

I'm not great at explaining mathematics, so I'll have to quote the site:

"It would be very problematic [for Evolutionary Theory] if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings. Proceeding with the previous example, some nonvascular plants could have seeds or flowers, like vascular plants, but they do not. Gymnosperms (e.g. conifers or pines) occasionally could be found with flowers, but they never are. Non-seed plants, like ferns, could be found with woody stems; however, only some angiosperms have woody stems. Conceivably, some birds could have mammary glands or hair; some mammals could have feathers (they are an excellent means of insulation). Certain fish or amphibians could have differentiated or cusped teeth, but these are only characteristics of mammals. A mix and match of characters like this would make it extremely difficult to objectively organize species into nested hierarchies. Unlike organisms, cars do have a mix and match of characters, and this is precisely why a nested hierarchy does not flow naturally from classification of cars.

If it were impossible, or very problematic, to place species in an objective nested classification scheme (as it is for the car, chair, book, atomic element, and elementary particle examples mentioned above), macroevolution would be effectively disproven. More precisely, if the phylogenetic tree of all life gave statistically significant low values of phylogenetic signal (hierarchical structure), common descent would be resolutely falsified."
http://www.talkorigins.org......

The big implication here is not just that "take any group of animals, and they should end up in a single coherent nest."

The implication is that every nested hierarchy you can find in nature must be part of a greater nested hiearchy (though there are lots of mathematical caveats involving logically possible hierarchies which get WAYYYYYYYYYY too deep for this convo).

Now, the TWIN NESTED HIERARCHY is when you take the kind of mathematical analysis you apply to morphological groups and compare it to slightly different mathematical analysis applied to genetics.

I'll give the example of a retrovirus since it's the most obvious.

A retrovirus gene occurs when some ancestor gets infected with a virus, and that virus is able to infiltrate a sex cell and embed its reverse-RNA into the animal's genome. If the retrovirus enters the sex cell and does not disrupt growth, it simply looks you are sequencing human DNA and suddenly there's DNA corresponding to the cold flu.

So lets say you have a room full of a four seemingly identical organisms, A, B,C, and D, and you want to figure out which two organisms share the most recent common ancestory.

Assume we are told that DNA for a particular retrovirus is found at loci X21 in organisms A and B, is completely absent in C, and occurs at loci X14 in D.

Statistically, two organisms having the same retrovirus in the same spot by simple mutation is nearly nil, so of the four organisms in question, all other things equal, organisms A and B are closer on the phylogenetic tree than to C and D.

Furthermore, we know A, B, and C are more closely related to each other than to D, because organism D must come from a line of organisms which never encountered the retrovirus.

This creates the secondary nested hierarchy.

The TWIN NESTED HIERARCHY, then, is the match we find between mathematic cladistic analysis (morphology) and genetic relatedness through statistical analysis.

If you're looking for example of Empirical confirmation of the twin nested hierarchy, go to the "citations" section of the link I gave above.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 7:48:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 5:28:34 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 11/17/2012 1:20:15 PM, Wnope wrote:
The strongest evidence for Evolutionary Theory, the part that modern science rests upon, is the twin nested hierarchy. It is empirically falsifiable, has been confirmed on countless occasions using phylogeny.

http://www.talkorigins.org...

However, the twin nested hierarchy gets STRONGER when you overlay the hierarchy with all known information on morphological and molecule parahomologies.

http://www.talkorigins.org...

It is FURTHER strengthened when you overlay all known examples of endogenous retrovirues, transposons, pseudogenes, satellite sequences, and other DNA markers that show with near statistical certainty when certain species diverged (i.e. if species A and B has retrovirus C, and species D is related but lacks the retrovirus, A and B had a closer evolutionary path (all other things equal) than A and D.

The "fossil record" is icing on the cake. Since advances in molecular biology, the fossil record has become more of a "pat on the back" confirmation than anything else.

If you're going to post this blasphemous bloviation, the least you could do is post in english so we can read it.

Do medics not have to take biology classes?
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 8:20:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 5:28:34 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 11/17/2012 1:20:15 PM, Wnope wrote:
The strongest evidence for Evolutionary Theory, the part that modern science rests upon, is the twin nested hierarchy. It is empirically falsifiable, has been confirmed on countless occasions using phylogeny.

http://www.talkorigins.org...

However, the twin nested hierarchy gets STRONGER when you overlay the hierarchy with all known information on morphological and molecule parahomologies.

http://www.talkorigins.org...

It is FURTHER strengthened when you overlay all known examples of endogenous retrovirues, transposons, pseudogenes, satellite sequences, and other DNA markers that show with near statistical certainty when certain species diverged (i.e. if species A and B has retrovirus C, and species D is related but lacks the retrovirus, A and B had a closer evolutionary path (all other things equal) than A and D.

The "fossil record" is icing on the cake. Since advances in molecular biology, the fossil record has become more of a "pat on the back" confirmation than anything else.

If you're going to post this blasphemous bloviation, the least you could do is post in english so we can read it.

I think given the subject matter, Wnope was extremely concise.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 8:59:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Succinct and cogent. Great post, Wnope. Heineken (AKA GenesisCreation) is probably the only Creationist on this website who could respond seriously to your arguments. If he shows up, somebody link this thread to my profile, gracias.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 12:48:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Some creationist needs to ManUp and either concede intellectual defeat or try to argue against Wnope's points.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 1:07:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/17/2012 1:11:43 PM, Wnope wrote:
I've been lurking for some time, but the utter state of degradation this forum has found itself has drawn me out.

I see threads devoted to reproducing Hovind's arguments. Threads about how a cambrian explosion cannot be explained by evolution (which is only a problem for those who are unfamiliar with the evolution of phlyogenic bodyplans).

Threads about how high school text book's inappropriate use of scientific metaphors qualifies as disqualifying the ground basis of modern science.

Get this straight. Physics, astronomy, biology, and chemistry must be FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG in order for a Young Earth Creationist viewpoint. Gap Creationism has a pass on astronomy, but it still loses physics, biology, and chemistry.

You cannot simultaneously say "we know mtDNA mutates without recombination at relatively stable rates" and then deny that mtDNA is an indicator for our most recent Mitochondrial Eve (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

You cannot simultaneously say "behavoiral and allopatric speciation have been witnessed both in laboratories and in the wild" and then say "its impossible to create species."

You cannot simultaneously say "the universe is six thousand years old, and physics with regard to the speed of light, gravity, and black body radiation is true."

Ditch science if you want, but don't claim to be some sort of academically-sound fence sitter.

No, you get this straight; poly strata fossils ALONE expose evolution as the absurd hoax it is..

It's a RACKET; big grants for big men with their big peer reviewed lies..

Evolutionists have ditched science, to get rid of God, to keep on sinning..
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 1:09:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/17/2012 1:32:51 PM, Wnope wrote:
And for the record, there is absolutely nothing inconsistent about being a religious Christian who believes in Evolution.

Same way there's nothing inconsistent about being a religious Christian and believing the world isn't a flat circle with an extra layer of firmament and water in the sky (see Genesis 1:6).

Totally false; Jesus said 'in the beginning He made them male and female' to believe otherwise is to call the Author of life a liar.. Not me!
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 1:11:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 12:48:03 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Some creationist needs to ManUp and either concede intellectual defeat or try to argue against Wnope's points.

What points?
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 1:17:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If I may play devil's advocate*;
The evidence is surely compelling what what old bean, however, just as that silly old egg adam and that beastly egg eve weren't created as delightful little baby-boos, the earth and splendid cosmos were created with age too! So even though we've all only been pootling about for 6000 years it looks a jolly sight longer.
Thus we quite indubitably reconcile young earth jolly good creationism, my dear little crumpet, with modern science.

*To play devils advocate I need to get into character.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 1:28:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 7:48:04 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/18/2012 5:28:34 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 11/17/2012 1:20:15 PM, Wnope wrote:
The strongest evidence for Evolutionary Theory, the part that modern science rests upon, is the twin nested hierarchy. It is empirically falsifiable, has been confirmed on countless occasions using phylogeny.

http://www.talkorigins.org...

However, the twin nested hierarchy gets STRONGER when you overlay the hierarchy with all known information on morphological and molecule parahomologies.

http://www.talkorigins.org...

It is FURTHER strengthened when you overlay all known examples of endogenous retrovirues, transposons, pseudogenes, satellite sequences, and other DNA markers that show with near statistical certainty when certain species diverged (i.e. if species A and B has retrovirus C, and species D is related but lacks the retrovirus, A and B had a closer evolutionary path (all other things equal) than A and D.

The "fossil record" is icing on the cake. Since advances in molecular biology, the fossil record has become more of a "pat on the back" confirmation than anything else.

If you're going to post this blasphemous bloviation, the least you could do is post in english so we can read it.

Do medics not have to take biology classes?

Interesting. Viruses EVOLVE every year, but someone in the medical field denies evolution.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 1:32:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 1:17:59 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
If I may play devil's advocate*;
The evidence is surely compelling what what old bean, however, just as that silly old egg adam and that beastly egg eve weren't created as delightful little baby-boos, the earth and splendid cosmos were created with age too! So even though we've all only been pootling about for 6000 years it looks a jolly sight longer.
Thus we quite indubitably reconcile young earth jolly good creationism, my dear little crumpet, with modern science.

*To play devils advocate I need to get into character.

Only issue is the Twin Nested hierarchy makes absolutely no sense if we say "Alright, God invented the world yesterday and everything was as aged as it is now" unless God wanted not simply to consider tricking us, but went to UTTERLY ABSURD LENGTHS to trick us. Inserting retroviruses and transposons just to make sure western scientists go to hell?

I can almost swallow a "god made all species yesterday in the morphological nested hierarchy" but it's beyond ridiculous to claim God made all species yesterday but went out of his way to introduce evidence with NO purpose other than to create the appearance of common descent.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 1:36:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 1:07:32 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 11/17/2012 1:11:43 PM, Wnope wrote:
I've been lurking for some time, but the utter state of degradation this forum has found itself has drawn me out.

I see threads devoted to reproducing Hovind's arguments. Threads about how a cambrian explosion cannot be explained by evolution (which is only a problem for those who are unfamiliar with the evolution of phlyogenic bodyplans).

Threads about how high school text book's inappropriate use of scientific metaphors qualifies as disqualifying the ground basis of modern science.

Get this straight. Physics, astronomy, biology, and chemistry must be FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG in order for a Young Earth Creationist viewpoint. Gap Creationism has a pass on astronomy, but it still loses physics, biology, and chemistry.

You cannot simultaneously say "we know mtDNA mutates without recombination at relatively stable rates" and then deny that mtDNA is an indicator for our most recent Mitochondrial Eve (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

You cannot simultaneously say "behavoiral and allopatric speciation have been witnessed both in laboratories and in the wild" and then say "its impossible to create species."

You cannot simultaneously say "the universe is six thousand years old, and physics with regard to the speed of light, gravity, and black body radiation is true."

Ditch science if you want, but don't claim to be some sort of academically-sound fence sitter.

No, you get this straight; poly strata fossils ALONE expose evolution as the absurd hoax it is..

It's a RACKET; big grants for big men with their big peer reviewed lies..

Evolutionists have ditched science, to get rid of God, to keep on sinning..

Polystrata fossils? As in, objects which just so happened to be situated between semi-arbitrarily categorized sedimentary layers as opposed to totally within them?

If we name a particular geologic age as taking place over 100,000 years, and a tree is around two years before the 100,000 year mark and two years after, it's polystrata.

What does that show?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 1:37:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 1:09:31 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 11/17/2012 1:32:51 PM, Wnope wrote:
And for the record, there is absolutely nothing inconsistent about being a religious Christian who believes in Evolution.

Same way there's nothing inconsistent about being a religious Christian and believing the world isn't a flat circle with an extra layer of firmament and water in the sky (see Genesis 1:6).

Totally false; Jesus said 'in the beginning He made them male and female' to believe otherwise is to call the Author of life a liar.. Not me!

So you believe the world is a flat disc with a layer of firmament above it and a layer of water above that?

Because you can't quote one verse of a Genesis chapter as literally true by virtue of terms as used at the time (i.e. literal translation) and then say another verse in the same chapter is entirely metaphorical.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 1:39:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 1:09:31 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 11/17/2012 1:32:51 PM, Wnope wrote:
And for the record, there is absolutely nothing inconsistent about being a religious Christian who believes in Evolution.

Same way there's nothing inconsistent about being a religious Christian and believing the world isn't a flat circle with an extra layer of firmament and water in the sky (see Genesis 1:6).

Totally false; Jesus said 'in the beginning He made them male and female' to believe otherwise is to call the Author of life a liar.. Not me!

" 20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:20-21, KJV)"

"Let the waters bring forth". Evolution

"
24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Genesis 1:24-27)"

He instructed the earth to bring forth the animals, not "let there be..." Evolution.

Many more passages support evolution in our creation story: http://www.oldearth.org...

And,
http://www.ucg.org...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 1:53:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 1:39:08 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 11/20/2012 1:09:31 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 11/17/2012 1:32:51 PM, Wnope wrote:
And for the record, there is absolutely nothing inconsistent about being a religious Christian who believes in Evolution.

Same way there's nothing inconsistent about being a religious Christian and believing the world isn't a flat circle with an extra layer of firmament and water in the sky (see Genesis 1:6).

Totally false; Jesus said 'in the beginning He made them male and female' to believe otherwise is to call the Author of life a liar.. Not me!

" 20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:20-21, KJV)"

"Let the waters bring forth". Evolution

"
24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Genesis 1:24-27)"

He instructed the earth to bring forth the animals, not "let there be..." Evolution.

Many more passages support evolution in our creation story: http://www.oldearth.org...

And,
http://www.ucg.org...

Except the Bible gets the order of creation drastically wrong.

Fruit plants didn't evolve to MUCH later than life in the water. Angiosperm evolution took a lot of time.

The Bible's order is much closer to to that found in Babylonian Creation myths than the order of evolved creatures, even when categorized as generally as the Bible does.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 1:54:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 1:32:33 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/20/2012 1:17:59 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
If I may play devil's advocate*;
The evidence is surely compelling what what old bean, however, just as that silly old egg adam and that beastly egg eve weren't created as delightful little baby-boos, the earth and splendid cosmos were created with age too! So even though we've all only been pootling about for 6000 years it looks a jolly sight longer.
Thus we quite indubitably reconcile young earth jolly good creationism, my dear little crumpet, with modern science.

*To play devils advocate I need to get into character.

Only issue is the Twin Nested hierarchy makes absolutely no sense if we say "Alright, God invented the world yesterday and everything was as aged as it is now" unless God wanted not simply to consider tricking us, but went to UTTERLY ABSURD LENGTHS to trick us. Inserting retroviruses and transposons just to make sure western scientists go to hell?

I can almost swallow a "god made all species yesterday in the morphological nested hierarchy" but it's beyond ridiculous to claim God made all species yesterday but went out of his way to introduce evidence with NO purpose other than to create the appearance of common descent.

The way my character* would view it: well you see dear chum; god didn't make the fluffy old retroviruses to trick us - but rather it was more akin to if some gentleman used one of those new-fangled simulators and just said stop after a certain point. What, what. That is to say, that the final result is indistinguishable from what would have happened had the time passed with my jolly good sky chum doing a frightfully decent thing and intervening. You see old bean, I'm reconciling the bible and science, not explaining away evolution - it's validity as a scientfic theory seems as inevitable as Queen's Park ranger's being relegated from the premier league.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 1:55:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 1:39:08 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 11/20/2012 1:09:31 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 11/17/2012 1:32:51 PM, Wnope wrote:
And for the record, there is absolutely nothing inconsistent about being a religious Christian who believes in Evolution.

Same way there's nothing inconsistent about being a religious Christian and believing the world isn't a flat circle with an extra layer of firmament and water in the sky (see Genesis 1:6).

Totally false; Jesus said 'in the beginning He made them male and female' to believe otherwise is to call the Author of life a liar.. Not me!

" 20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:20-21, KJV)"

"Let the waters bring forth". Evolution

"
24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Genesis 1:24-27)"

He instructed the earth to bring forth the animals, not "let there be..." Evolution.

Many more passages support evolution in our creation story: http://www.oldearth.org...

And,
http://www.ucg.org...

Bless your little cotton socks.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 1:57:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 1:54:37 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 11/20/2012 1:32:33 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/20/2012 1:17:59 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
If I may play devil's advocate*;
The evidence is surely compelling what what old bean, however, just as that silly old egg adam and that beastly egg eve weren't created as delightful little baby-boos, the earth and splendid cosmos were created with age too! So even though we've all only been pootling about for 6000 years it looks a jolly sight longer.
Thus we quite indubitably reconcile young earth jolly good creationism, my dear little crumpet, with modern science.

*To play devils advocate I need to get into character.

Only issue is the Twin Nested hierarchy makes absolutely no sense if we say "Alright, God invented the world yesterday and everything was as aged as it is now" unless God wanted not simply to consider tricking us, but went to UTTERLY ABSURD LENGTHS to trick us. Inserting retroviruses and transposons just to make sure western scientists go to hell?

I can almost swallow a "god made all species yesterday in the morphological nested hierarchy" but it's beyond ridiculous to claim God made all species yesterday but went out of his way to introduce evidence with NO purpose other than to create the appearance of common descent.

The way my character* would view it: well you see dear chum; god didn't make the fluffy old retroviruses to trick us - but rather it was more akin to if some gentleman used one of those new-fangled simulators and just said stop after a certain point. What, what. That is to say, that the final result is indistinguishable from what would have happened had the time passed with my jolly good sky chum doing a frightfully decent thing and intervening. You see old bean, I'm reconciling the bible and science, not explaining away evolution - it's validity as a scientfic theory seems as inevitable as Queen's Park ranger's being relegated from the premier league.

Well, if your attack on Evolution is based on an epistemology where time didn't exist before yesterday, then I don't think we have too much more to argue about.