I dont believe in evolution

[Zzyzx]

.
You (generic term) dont believe in evolution because it has not been proved to your satisfaction. Correct?

Do you believe tales of human parthenogenesis (virgin birth), reanimation of long dead bodies (resurrection), Earth flooded to tops of mountains, donkeys and snakes talking, demons being cast into swine which drown themselves, faith can move mountains (literally), supernatural characters influencing human lives, etc?

Have all the latter been proved to your satisfaction? If so, what is that proof?

[Bust Nak]

I know that whales are not fish...

Well that kinda sinks your thesis, doesn't it?

but if you believe that happened, why could it not happen with mice?

But it could, just not into fishes.

Evolution theory, if it means any change to really different animal doesnt happen.

But the land ancestors of whales aren't really different to modern whales, yet you don't believe it, what gives?

Small changes in attributes animal has, is not evolution, it is only small differences within the specie.

Small differences is enough turn land animals to sea creatures.

If you would claim those changes could lead to different species, similarly as in the whale example, I think it is interesting baseless belief.

But we have empirical evidence for it. Why would that not lift it beyond baseless?

[Bust Nak]

While there may exist an exception, none of the responses in this thread up to this point have convinced me that he was wrong.

Think of the money you can get by selling books and lecture tours to creationists. Surely that is enough to convince you that there are people who understands evolution and yet rejects it.

[Tcg]

While there may exist an exception, none of the responses in this thread up to this point have convinced me that he was wrong.

Think of the money you can get by selling books and lecture tours to creationists. Surely that is enough to convince you that there are people who understands evolution and yet rejects it.

Years ago, I had the job of audio recording a week long lecture presented by The Institute for Creation Research. I don't remember evolution being presented correctly, but between the books, attendance fees, and the tapes I created, there sure was fair amount of money involved.



Tcg

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

Is your post intended as satire?

As you will see I do not make comments that I cannot back up.

If that was true, microbes could not become antibiotic resistant. (Evolution = genetic change through generations)

Are you familiar with what evolution is? Evolution is when a duplication and then a mutation happens. This creates new functions in the cell and new information in the genome.

So what was this duplication and then mutation that happen to create a microbe that is resistant to antibiotics. Antibiotics kill bacteria by binding to specific proteins. If there is a mutation and this protein is changed to another type of protein then it will become resistant to that particular antibiotic. There is no duplication and mutation. No new information was added to the genome. It is only a change in a protein that the bacteria already produced.

So how would this be evolution?

The processes involved in reproduction are not flawless. Changes (mistakes) can occur in genetic material (DNA). Those genetic changes alter the genetic makeup of offspring.

Again incorrect. It is only considered evolution if there is a duplication and then a mutation. This is the only way that new information can be added to the genome without losing information.

Most if not all genetic mutations are either neutral or deleterious. This build up of deleterious mutations of called genetic load. This genetic load can cause the death of organisms.

The presence of a sixth finger, referred to as polydactyly, occurs in one in 3,000 births. It is one of the most common malformations of the hand and can result in either a fully formed sixth digit or a small skin tag on the side of the hand. https://www.reference.com/health/common ... c823d02bdb

The condition indicates a genetic mutation which can be passed on to offspring. Here is an example of a family that shares the condition.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life ... family-12-...

Also see: https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main ... lekey=7756

You are missing the point. Evolution says that the duplication that occurred will then change into a different structure with a different function.


EarthScienceguy wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

Do you believe tales of human parthenogenesis (virgin birth), reanimation of long dead bodies (resurrection), Earth flooded to tops of mountains, donkeys and snakes talking, demons being cast into swine which drown themselves, faith can move mountains (literally), supernatural characters influencing human lives, etc?


Kindly provide verifiable evidence to support the claim that the events have been observed.

They were observed and then written down.

Therefore, microbes do not become antibiotic resistant. Right?

Not through evolution

Kindly identify the eyewitnesses to virgin birth (with confirmation of virginity).

How can it be known what people who lived in those areas believed or did not believe?

Yes we can. Do you not believe in the science of History? Christianity started in the very area where these events took place. The existence of Christianity itself is a testament to the truth of the claims that the Bible makes.

Jesus died by crucifixion.

2. He was buried.

3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.

4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).

5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).

6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.

7. The resurrection was the central message.

8. They preached the message of Jesus resurrection in Jerusalem.

9. The Church was born and grew.

10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.

11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).

12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

[benchwarmer]

How about supported scientifically. With mountains of evidence. Including the reason many bacteria are no longer phased by older antibiotics.

That is like saying, if I chose tomorrow to eat only meat, then I have evolved and become new species.

No, it is nothing like that. You are suggesting the bacteria just decided one day to stop being killed by antibiotics. Like they had a meeting or something

It would be more like your child is unable to process meat for some reason due to a genetic disorder (mutation) that happened during reproduction. Then your child had many children who also has this mutation (it was passed on) and eventually you end up with a small population of people who can't process meat. This mutation can be traced back to your child.

Why is it that some people continue to misrepresent what evolution is really about? I get it if you never studied biology and really don't understand the processed involved, but why not learn instead of just making stuff up?

They are nothing alike. If you want to see evolution in action, you can do that. Observe any living organism reproduce. Voila, you just observed evolution. Unless of course you think reproduction results in clones.

Ok, sorry, in this case I should have been more accurate. If evolution theory means that all modern animals are offspring of simple organism, which offspring has evolved to all current species, then I say it has no proof or evidence. If evolution means that people can have different colors or similar meaningless differences, then I can accept it, but it is not vey meaningful and it doesnt mean all species have evolved from simple organisms.

Again, I refer you go biology. Specifically genetic biology. You do understand that we now have the technology to examine the genome of a specimen and find common markers with other specimens right? Specifically retroviruses shared by different specimens point to a common ancestor.

Stop trying to mix up the theory of evolution with religion. The theory of evolution is simply an explanation based on ALL available data to date regarding living organisms and what happens during reproduction. It is based entirely on hard data not on opinions or wishes. If you have hard data that refutes it, fantastic!! Please write a paper that explains how to observe this data so that others can reproduce your findings. Submit it for peer review. You will either cause the theory to be updated to encompass the new data (scientists are happy to update based on latest knowledge), or your paper will be shown to have flaws due to the inability to reproduce your results. If you manage to knock the theory right down as some theists seem bent on doing, enjoy your Nobel prize in biology. It will be well deserved.

[Zzyzx]

.

Is your post intended as satire?

As you will see I do not make comments that I cannot back up.

We shall see below. I trust that readers await your back up.

If that was true, microbes could not become antibiotic resistant. (Evolution = genetic change through generations)

Are you familiar with what evolution is?

I am somewhat familiar with what geneticists say about evolution

Evolution is the process by which populations of organisms change over generations. Genetic variations underlie these changes. Genetic variations can arise from gene mutations or from genetic recombination (a normal process in which genetic material is rearranged as a cell is getting ready to divide). These variations often alter gene activity or protein function, which can introduce different traits in an organism. If a trait is advantageous and helps the individual survive and reproduce, the genetic variation is more likely to be passed to the next generation (a process known as natural selection). Over time, as generations of individuals with the trait continue to reproduce, the advantageous trait becomes increasingly common in a population, making the population different than an ancestral one. Sometimes the population becomes so different that it is considered a new species.

Not all mutations lead to evolution. Only hereditary mutations, which occur in egg or sperm cells, can be passed to future generations and potentially contribute to evolution. Some mutations occur during a persons lifetime in only some of the bodys cells and are not hereditary, so natural selection cannot play a role. Also, many genetic changes have no impact on the function of a gene or protein and are not helpful or harmful. In addition, the environment in which a population of organisms lives is integral to the selection of traits. Some differences introduced by mutations may help an organism survive in one setting but not in another"for example, resistance to a certain bacteria is only advantageous if that bacteria is found in a particular location and harms those who live there.

I am less familiar with what Apologists claim the term means or how it occurs.

Evolution is when a duplication and then a mutation happens. This creates new functions in the cell and new information in the genome.

Mutation occurs during reproduction " see above

So what was this duplication and then mutation that happen to create a microbe that is resistant to antibiotics.

A mutation MAY lead to antibiotic resistance. That becomes an example of evolution if the characteristic is passed on to future generations genetically.

Antibiotics kill bacteria by binding to specific proteins. If there is a mutation and this protein is changed to another type of protein then it will become resistant to that particular antibiotic. There is no duplication and mutation. No new information was added to the genome. It is only a change in a protein that the bacteria already produced.

So how would this be evolution?

Genetic change passed to following generations meets the geneticists definition. Check with geneticists " not theologians or bibliolaters

The processes involved in reproduction are not flawless. Changes (mistakes) can occur in genetic material (DNA). Those genetic changes alter the genetic makeup of offspring.

Again incorrect. It is only considered evolution if there is a duplication and then a mutation.

Correction: evolution (according to geneticists " not Apologists) is the process by which populations of organisms change over generations. Genetic variations underlie these changes

See above

This is the only way that new information can be added to the genome without losing information.

Losing information is a form of genetic change " and may be evolutionary if passed to future generations genetically.

Most if not all genetic mutations are either neutral or deleterious. This build up of deleterious mutations of called genetic load. This genetic load can cause the death of organisms.

I disagree with if not all in that statement.

The presence of a sixth finger, referred to as polydactyly, occurs in one in 3,000 births. It is one of the most common malformations of the hand and can result in either a fully formed sixth digit or a small skin tag on the side of the hand. https://www.reference.com/health/common ... c823d02bdb

The condition indicates a genetic mutation which can be passed on to offspring. Here is an example of a family that shares the condition.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life ... family-12-...

Also see: https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main ... lekey=7756

You are missing the point.

Perhaps it is not me who is missing the point. Readers will decide for themselves.

Evolution says that the duplication that occurred will then change into a different structure with a different function.

Perhaps we would be wise to stay with what geneticists say on the matter.

Do you believe tales of human parthenogenesis (virgin birth), reanimation of long dead bodies (resurrection), Earth flooded to tops of mountains, donkeys and snakes talking, demons being cast into swine which drown themselves, faith can move mountains (literally), supernatural characters influencing human lives, etc?

Kindly provide verifiable evidence to support the claim that the events have been observed.

They were observed and then written down.

WHO observed? HOW is that known? WHO wrote? Provide the writers identity. When did the writing occur?

Therefore, microbes do not become antibiotic resistant. Right?

Not through evolution

Your opinion appears to be contradictory to what geneticists say on the matter.

Kindly identify the eyewitnesses to virgin birth (with confirmation of virginity).

How can it be known what people who lived in those areas believed or did not believe?

Yes we can.

Present your case for knowing what people 2000 years ago believed.

People of the area, Jewish people, REJECTED claims that Jesus was the messiah

NOW, perhaps you can address: Kindly identify the eyewitnesses to virgin birth (with confirmation of virginity). since you claim Yes we can and also claim to back up what you say.

Do you not believe in the science of History?

A accept that history is the study of past events. I do not accept that what is written is infallible since humans are fallible. There is limited certainty about events (and particularly conversations) that occurred long ago.

Christianity started in the very area where these events took place.

Christianity was REJECTED in the area where events were said to have taken place. It became popular FAR away and long afterward.

The existence of Christianity itself is a testament to the truth of the claims that the Bible makes.

If existence of a religion is testament to the truth of its claims, that would apply to all 4000 of the worlds religions " all their tales are true as testified by their existence.

Doesnt make much sense, does it?

My responses are in bold font.

1. Jesus died by crucifixion. Probably

2. He was buried. Kindly back up what you claim with evidence that does not depend upon the story itself / the book telling the tale.

3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope. So goes the tale " might be true " not particularly significant; death often causes despair and loss of hope. So what?

4. The tomb was empty (the most contested). No assurance of a tomb, no assurance of empty " just some unverifiable stories by religion promoters.

5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof). So goes the tale. Can that be backed up with disconnected verifiable evidence? Or are we just to believe the story as told (or form opinions based on the story)?

6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers. So goes the tale. Back up.

7. The resurrection was the central message. Kindly back up the claim that a resurrection occurred " verifiable evidence to support the story

8. They preached the message of Jesus resurrection in Jerusalem. Jerusalem preaching evidently did not convince people of the area (Jews) who rejected it. Preaching was more successful FAR away and decades or centuries later.

9. The Church was born and grew. Christianity was evidently rejected by people of the area. Jewish people rejected the claim that Jesus was the messiah. Paul/Saul and cohorts promoted their religion (using Jesus as icon) to people ELSEWHERE " particularly in other places of the Roman empire.

10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship. The concept of worshiping on the Sabbath LONG predated Jesus

11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic). So goes the tale. Is there independent / disconnected back up " or must we depend upon the story to back up itself?

12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic). So goes the tale. Jesus is said to have preached Judaism. Paul/Saul evidently rejected Judaism and formed what became known as Christianity (and preached it to Romans / Gentiles).

[Realworldjack]

.
You (generic term) dont believe in evolution because it has not been proved to your satisfaction. Correct?

Do you believe tales of human parthenogenesis (virgin birth), reanimation of long dead bodies (resurrection), Earth flooded to tops of mountains, donkeys and snakes talking, demons being cast into swine which drown themselves, faith can move mountains (literally), supernatural characters influencing human lives, etc?

Have all the latter been proved to your satisfaction? If so, what is that proof?

You (generic term) dont believe in evolution because it has not been proved to your satisfaction.

As for me (meaning myself) I do not believe, nor disbelieve evolution. I believe it to be a fact, that evolution in its totality has not been observed, nor demonstrated to have occurred.

There may indeed be good, and solid reasons to believe that evolution may have indeed occurred, and we all need to know, and consider these reasons, and understand that evolution in its totality could certainly be a possibility, to which I adhere.

With this being the case, I have no problem with those who acknowledge this fact, and then to go on to say they, "are convinced that evolution in its totality would be a fact, based upon the evidence we have" while continuing to acknowledge that it does not measure up to the standard to actually be considered a scientific fact.

I have no problem with this is the least. What I have a problem with, is those who seem to insist that it would be a scientific fact, which has been demonstrated.

Do you believe tales of human parthenogenesis (virgin birth), reanimation of long dead bodies (resurrection), Earth flooded to tops of mountains, donkeys and snakes talking, demons being cast into swine which drown themselves, faith can move mountains (literally), supernatural characters influencing human lives, etc?

Actually, here we would really need to take these things one at the time. With this being the case, let us handle this by simply looking at one of your examples, which would be the Resurrection of Jesus.

Like evolution (and when I refer to evolution I will be speaking of evolution in its totality) the Resurrection of Jesus would not be a demonstrable fact. Also like evolution, there may be very good, and solid reasons, along with evidence to come to the conclusion that the Resurrection may have indeed taken place.

Therefore, I see no problem with one who acknowledges the fact, that the Resurrection would not be a demonstrable fact proclaiming, "I am convinced the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is a fact, based upon the evidence we have at hand."

The point is, I do not insist that evolution is impossible, and there would be no evidence in support of evolution. Rather, I acknowledge that there would be evidence in support of evolution, but this evidence does not demonstrate evolution to be a fact.

In the same way, I do not insist that the Resurrection is a demonstrable fact, however I do insist that there is evidence to support the Resurrection, and I am convinced of the Resurrection based upon this evidence.

The whole point here is to say, I have no problem with those who are convinced of evolution based upon the evidence. I simply remain unconvinced at this point. On the other hand, I am convinced of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, based upon the evidence, and I have no problem with those who remain unconvinced.

The problem comes in when, those on one side or the other begin to proclaim that, one or the other would be a fact, and go on to insist the other would be false.

[Bust Nak]

There may indeed be good, and solid reasons to believe that evolution may have indeed occurred...

Only "may?" Actual physically demonstrable, empirical evidence doesn't count?

With this being the case, I have no problem with those who acknowledge this fact, and then to go on to say they, "are convinced that evolution in its totality would be a fact, based upon the evidence we have" while continuing to acknowledge that it does not measure up to the standard to actually be considered a scientific fact.

I have no problem with this is the least. What I have a problem with, is those who seem to insist that it would be a scientific fact, which has been demonstrated.

But why doesn't aforementioned empirical evidence count as measuring up to the standard to actually be considered a scientific fact? (Note the qualifier "scientific" as opposed to unqualified fact.)

The point is, I do not insist that evolution is impossible, and there would be no evidence in support of evolution. Rather, I acknowledge that there would be evidence in support of evolution, but this evidence does not demonstrate evolution to be a fact.

That won't do, that stop short on affirmig that there is empirical evidence in support of evolution.

The whole point here is to say, I have no problem with those who are convinced of evolution based upon the evidence. I simply remain unconvinced at this point.

Well I have a problem with that.

The problem comes in when, those on one side or the other begin to proclaim that, one or the other would be a fact, and go on to insist the other would be false.

That's where empirical evidence comes in.

[Zzyzx]

.

I believe it to be a fact, that evolution in its totality has not been observed, nor demonstrated to have occurred.

New twist? "Evolution in its totality" means exactly what?

Has anything about Christianity or the Bible been established 'in its totality'?

In the same way, I do not insist that the Resurrection is a demonstrable fact, however I do insist that there is evidence to support the Resurrection, and I am convinced of the Resurrection based upon this evidence.

What is the evidence to support resurrection beyond:

Tales of a tomb
Tales of Joseph of Arimathea
Tales of 'men' or 'angels'
Tales of a tomb being empty
Tales of people seeing the deceased

ALL unsubstantiated outside the source telling the tales.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 26 by Zzyzx]

Perhaps it is not me who is missing the point. Readers will decide for themselves.

This reader will quote what ESG asked for
Next time you see someone with an extra finger and then that extra finger turn into something useful. Let me know.

To which Z responded by linking to a news article about a family who have several members who have extra fingers. There are two quotes about this extra finger being useful.
Joao de Assis da Silva, 15, preferred position is goalkeeper and said: It's good because my hands are bigger than other people and I have a better grip and can hold the ball much better than people with five fingers.


He also plays the guitar while his eight-year-old cousin, Maria Morena da Silva is learning the piano, she said: My piano teacher wishes he had six fingers, you can play easier and reach more notes.

ESG, Z gave you EXACTLY what you asked for. So why dismiss it?

Evolution says that the duplication that occurred will then change into a different structure with a different function.

No it doesn't.
Are you stuck thinking we're talking about Pokemon-esque evolution? Or Eric Hovind's Crocoduck?

They were observed and then written down.

Who observed the birth of Jesus and then wrote it down?
Who observed the reanimation of Jesus and then wrote it down?
Who observed the flooding of the Earth and then wrote it down?
This just shows you don't know your own literature.

Z asks

Kindly identify the eyewitnesses to virgin birth (with confirmation of virginity).

How can it be known what people who lived in those areas believed or did not believe?

and your response is to talk about...the crucifixion? Why is it you did NOT answer Z's question? Even after quoting it?