0
1

TextWhy is evolution not true? (self.CreationExposed)

CreationExposedMirror が 投稿

(No text)

Written by: ca****si

全 55 件のコメント
並べ替え:
古い順 (提案されたアイデア)
ベストトップ新着論争中Q&A

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

In a nutshell, reality is composed of structures that are themselves composed of components that must operate in conjunction in order for the structures to function. Or, realty is made of things that work because they have been put together.

Written by: Ma*****11

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

AKA irreducible complexity?

Written by: ca****si

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, more or less. I think that's Michael Behe's term for it as applied to biology. But it goes beyond biological evolution all the way back to the "nothing doesn't produce something" and "disorder doesn't produce order" arguments from natural theology to explain the existence of God the creator. Biological structures are just the most glaringly obvious specially created structures that every 3-year old should be able to conclude must have been assembled by some source of superior intellect. But the same can be said of anything that exists. Reality is composed of compounds and those compounds can interact because they are functional, and they are functional because their components interact properly because they were designed and assembled.

Written by: Ma*****11

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (17子コメント)

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” ‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1:1‬ ‭NIV‬‬ http://bible.com/111/gen.1.1.niv

Written by: HS*********ns

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Why is Genesis true?

Written by: ca****si

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

“Then the LORD said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.” ‭‭Exodus‬ ‭34:27-28‬ ‭NIV‬‬ http://bible.com/111/exo.34.27-28.niv

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,” ‭‭2 Timothy‬ ‭3:16‬ ‭NIV‬‬ http://bible.com/111/2ti.3.16.niv

Written by: HS*********ns

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

What makes those verses true?

Written by: Si*********ts

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't know who downvoted you, you're asking a really important question that most followers of Christ probably wouldn't know how to answer.

Written by: ca*****ex

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

They were spoken by the LORD himself. Since I'm a true christian I believe this and my beliefs cannot be proven false since it is what I believe (believe, believe, believe, believe, believe...)

Here's an article about evolution and why it's false btw. http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html

Written by: sa*******23

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (11子コメント)

Doesn't that just mean he created evolution? I don't get it.

If someone asked if relativity was true, you wouldn't rebuke it with this verse would you?

Written by: bu****************er

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

“So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” ‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1:27‬ ‭NIV‬‬ http://bible.com/111/gen.1.27.niv

Written by: HS*********ns

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I still don't understand how these verses alone disprove or prove anything.

It doesn't say god created things in scripture, like magnetism, but we know magnetism exists so when we read the words "created" we assume that falls in there someplace.

Also it does say god created man from dust rather than from thin air. So god is creating and allowing his creation to produce things.

These verses alone don't say what you're implying they say but it's hard to know exactly what you are interpreting them as since you are just quoting scripture with no explanation.

Written by: bu****************er

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (8子コメント)

“Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josek, the son of Joda, the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the son of Melki, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.” ‭‭Luke‬ ‭3:23-38‬ ‭NIV‬‬ http://bible.com/111/luk.3.23-38.niv

“This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham: Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram, Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon, Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife, Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa, Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram, Jehoram the father of Uzziah, Uzziah the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josiah, and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon. After the exile to Babylon: Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, Zerubbabel the father of Abihud, Abihud the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor, Azor the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Akim, Akim the father of Elihud, Elihud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah. Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭1:1-17‬ ‭NIV‬‬ http://bible.com/111/mat.1.1-17.niv

Written by: HS*********ns

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (7子コメント)

These verses contradict each other...

Written by: pi************wn

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Good eye, but Not quite

The purpose of Matthew’s genealogy, then, is to show why Yeshua could not be king if he were really Joseph’s son. The purpose was not to show the royal line. For this reason, Matthew starts his Gospel with the genealogy, presents the Jeconiah problem, and then proceeds with the account of the virgin birth which, from Matthew’s viewpoint, is the solution to the Jeconiah problem. In summary, Matthew deduces that if Jesus were really Joseph’s son, he could not claim to sit on David’s throne because of the Jeconiah curse; but Jesus was not Joseph’s son, for he was born of the virgin Miriam (Matthew 1:18-25).

Unlike Matthew, Luke follows strict Jewish procedure and custom in that he omits no names and mentions no women. However, if by Jewish custom one could not mention the name of a woman, but wished to trace her line, how would one do so? He would use the name of her husband. (Possible Old Testament precedents for this practice are Ezra 2:61 and Nehemiah 7:63.) That would raise a second question: If someone studied a genealogy, how would he know whether the genealogy were that of the husband or that of the wife, since in either case the husband’s name would be used? The answer is not difficult; the problem lies with the English language.

In English it is not good grammar to use a definite article (“the”) before a proper name (“the” Matthew, “the” Luke, “the” Miriam): however, it is quite permissible in Greek grammar. In the Greek text of Luke’s genealogy, every single name mentioned has the Greek definite article “the” with one exception: the name of Joseph (Luke 3:23). Someone reading the original would understand by the missing definite article from Joseph’s name that this was not really Joseph’s genealogy, but his wife Miriam’s.

Written by: Fu*****li

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Interesting. Two questions, how would some have written the the genealogy for an unwed women or for the 2nd wife of a man? Why did they not use adjectives to describe the women, the name could still be avoided but the confusion removed eg Joseph's wife or bob's daughter?

I'm struggling to fact check the but was this the standard way Jews did female genealogies? Did they not have adequate words to describe women?

Written by: pi************wn

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Matthew and Luke had two different ways of thinking and thus two different writing styles. Also consider that Luke may not have had access to the same genealogical information as Matthew.

Written by: DE********ER

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

So, one or both is wrong?

Written by: pi************wn

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

No?

Both are correct. They follow two separate correct genealogies.

Written by: DE********ER

[–]MikeTheInfidel 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This blows me away... because it's mathematically impossible. There are so many more generations in one genealogy than in the other!

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

how would some have written the the genealogy for an unwed women or for the 2nd wife of a man?

Kind of depends on what language (Hebrew or Greek) you are writing in. in general, Hebrews/Jews up until around a couple hundred years after jesus Didn't care about genealogy of women, it was through the male line that it was counted (after a few centuries into the common era Jews seem to have started counting it matrilinealy.).

So they simply wouldn't write the genealogy of the woman (and in the case of an unwed woman, the kid wouldn't have a father genealogically speaking, that was kind of the point of marriage).

Why did they not use adjectives to describe the women, the name could still be avoided but the confusion removed eg Joseph's wife or bob's daughter?

They wouldn't have cared about the woman (for instance The Talmud states, “A mother’s family is not to be called a family.”). But when they decided to do so for whatever reason they did do your "Bob's daughter" option (see Ezra 2:61 and Nehemiah 7:63).

Ezra 2:61"...the sons of Barzillai, who took a wife from the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and he was called by their name."

But remember, that was written in Hebrew. Luke was written in Greek instead of Hebrews and several hundred years by which convention was a bit different.

Written by: Fu*****li

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (27子コメント)

Because it isn't reality.

You never see nonlife become life.

You never see any kind of living thing give birth to a completely different kind of thing. Or even new features. (Irreducible complexity is a real thing---You never get "half" of anything; all the machinery needs to be in place for it to work.)

It isn't true because it simply never happens.

And certainly nobody has ever seen it happen--it's 100% in the imagination.

Written by: Ju************nk

[–]DarwinZDF42 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

never see nonlife become life.

Have you ever witnessed creation?

 

You never see any kind of living thing give birth to a completely different kind of thing. Or even new features. (Irreducible complexity is a real thing---You never get "half" of anything; all the machinery needs to be in place for it to work.)

IC is not a thing. Incomplete eyes, immune systems, blood clotting cascades all work great in various species. That argument also assumes that a structure or system as had the same function for its entire history, but that often isn't the case. For example, reptilian scales are primarily to prevent desiccation, early feathers were for thermoregulation, and later on adapted for flight. So you don't need wings/feathers/hollow bones/etc to appear all at once.

 

It isn't true because it simply never happens. And certainly nobody has ever seen it happen--it's 100% in the imagination.

There's a small protein in HIV called Vpu that we did see evolve. HIV appeared in humans around 1930, give or take a decade. It is the result of a host-shift from SIV, simian immunodeficiency virus, in chimps. SIV-Vpu does one thing, HIV-Vpu does that same thing, but it also does a second function, which allows HIV to overcome a unique feature of the human immune system. SIV-Vpu doesn't have this function. That's a major change, and it happened within the last century.

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (25子コメント)

Non-life to life isn't part of evolution. That's a different subject.

We do see things change over time, natural selection and other mechanisms are also not specific to the theory of evolution. We can see these things but many people conclude that they are too slow or that they cannot account for all speciation. Claiming they do not happen ever is incorrect.

I think you've got a couple of the problems with evolution switched around.

Written by: bu****************er

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Non-life to life is absolutely part of evolution.

Not sure if I need to even say much more than this, if you're going to be this dishonest right from the start.

Written by: Ju************nk

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (23子コメント)

OK, I will actually say a bit more.

"We see things change over time."

Yes, well, cooking changes things. It turns dough into bread. But that's not evolution.

You never, EVER see an animal become a different kind of animal. That is 100% speculation / assumption / imagination. You've never seen it happen. Nobody has.

Speciation isn't this. "This dog can't make a baby with certain other dogs" or "this rabbit can't make a baby with certain other rabbits" isn't "holy crap this rabbit has a new feature that no other rabbit has," or "holy crap this rabbit has made a non-rabbit thing." That's something that never happens, no matter how long you let rabbits make babies or the circumstances around it.

To believe that a rabbit can ever make anything besides a rabbit, no matter how long you let rabbits reproduce, is ALL in the imagination. It is never something observable. I would say "it is because it can't happen," although I am sure you would say "Well it's because it takes a long time."

Fine. Either way, it is not something that you have ever seen, it is something you have IMAGINED. And I'm all about proof, not imagination.

This is why I am a YEC.

But as to my earlier comment---I was reading college-level science and biology textbooks from the time I was in kindergarden. Cellular biology fascinated me. (Still does--moreso now, really.) And there has never been a book I have read that taught evolution that didn't also try to say that all life came from non-life, and say "that's part of evolution." And I read a lot of books.

So either you're living in a HIGHLY isolated world, or you're just trying to be clever. I've seen the latter literally every time, and I've simply lost patience for it. If you are the former, I apologize profusely and sincerely. But I would bet money that you do not simply have the mindset of "WHAT?! Evolution and the origin of life have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with each other!"

Written by: Ju************nk

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (18子コメント)

Right. But at the same time, would you mind telling me who you have spoken to or read that was an eye witness to the first creation day?

You can't honestly play the "no one witnessed it" game only when it is convenient for something you want to disprove.

Based on the things you have said about evolution so far I think it is safe to agree that no one has seen what you understand evolution to be. However even ardent creationists on this sub agree in animal change over time. It's not an imagination and we have observational evidence that supports the theories, which is actually where the theories come from. Observation.

No one has seen directly the entire history of speciation. I will agree.

But no one saw day 1 of creation. Sure we have a book people wrote in later about what happened, but if you really believed in only things you could verify by seeing, you really wouldn't be a YEC. And you likely wouldn't even believe in any supernatural things even.

I think it is also important to keep in mind I am not arguing from a naturalist position.

You are a YEC but I bet you still believe in forces of nature and systems? Like say the water cycle. It doesn't mean god isn't in control of that. It means he is. So I believe god is in control of evolutionary processes, not that they take his place. It's like anything else we see, under his dominion and at his control. I feel it is important I clarify that.

However I realistically have more evidence that i have investigated to support evolution than I do god. So if I had to throw out evolution for the reason I've never seen it, then uh, what else do I toss?

Written by: bu****************er

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (14子コメント)

Sure we have a book people wrote

Is that actually what you think it is?

Written by: We*************ck

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (13子コメント)

What do you mean?

Written by: bu****************er

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (12子コメント)

I mean do you think the Bible is just a book written by people?

Written by: We*************ck

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (11子コメント)

I think you're taking that too literally. I didn't mean it was made up by people but that it is a book directed to people and for people and it's translated by people and people are the ones doing the writing.

I'm not saying it was made up.

Like, God didn't type it himself. People wrote it down.

So we can't act like "it says in the Bible in Genesis that god did this so that's proof that day one was ..." many times what follows next is not exactly what is written but our interpretation of the text.

So people read it. People wrote it down. God inspired it, but the interpretation people get out of it isn't always the one god intended.

I didn't say "just" in a dismissive way. I said a book written by people. It's different.

Like if I said Ohio is a state. Versus Ohio is just a state. The just implies something. I think. I didn't do that what you just quoted me as.

It's not intellectually fair to treat our bible as a first hand witness to creation when we are reading things out of it that aren't exactly what's in it. When we read a science book that describes some observed process we know the human factor means a mistake could be made in reading or writing. But we don't take the book as perfect.

The Bible is not wrong but many times how we read it can be misguided or reading too much into specific words. And from a secular perspective it is a book with text that was written by people. So it doesn't get a free pass when someone might say "I can prove evolution is false because the Bible doesn't ever say the word evolution". That's a intellectually dishonest argument for a lot of reasons.

I am not sure if I cleared it up or made it worse.

Anyway I didn't say "just a book" like I think you're worried I meant people made it up.

Written by: bu****************er

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (10子コメント)

Sorry, my question wasn't meant to sound snarky. I was genuinely curious about where you stood in the inspiration of Scripture, because you said:

would you mind telling me who you have spoken to or read that was an eye witness to the first creation day?

Most creationists would answer that the person who created the universe, and witnessed the creation of the creation of the universe, wrote a book about the creation of the universe.

I take your point about translation, but I don't agree that "It's not intellectually fair to treat our bible as a first hand witness to creation when we are reading things out of it that aren't exactly what's in it." The creation account uses simple language that is meant to be understood in its usual, literal sense. It's only when science suggests something other than what is clear in Scripture that there is a perceived dissonance between what the Bible says and what it means (eg. "scientists say the world is millions of years old, so maybe 6 days doesn't mean 6 literal days").

I've never heard anyone say "I can prove evolution is false because the Bible doesn't ever say the word evolution," but yes, that would be a useless argument. The fact that Genesis does present a simple account of creation, however, is still the ultimate reason for a Christian to believe that the universe did not evolve.

Written by: We*************ck

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (9子コメント)

No one saw what god did. God described it. He didn't describe it in technical terms. He described it in terms of how everything that we see was created by him intentionally. He only allowed his creation to create when that was his intention.

That's a plain reading of scripture, in my opinion. God wasn't describing day one in terms of specifics but in terms of his dominion over it.

We have no reason to believe day one was 24 hours unless we feel that we absolutely must expect that god created the entire universe in the exact order and placement that it required for the orbits and gravity of each object in space to begin and end day one on the 24 clock. Scripture doesn't say anything about this. It's ok to reach some of these conclusions but focusing on the most literal meaning of a word in a chapter is not always focusing on the most important meanings of the words as a whole part of a larger body of text.

The "simple language" and "plain reading" argument doesn't make sense to me. Because there is so much read into the text.

My point is people believe strongly about day one of Genesis without ever seeing it. They can only read about it. It's fair to assume that any reading would be a little different or a lot different.

Sure god inspired the text. But no one saw it.

Written by: bu****************er

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

And ALL that the OP was asking is, "Why is evolution not true." At no point was I trying to make a case for YEC---just saying "evolution is definitely not true.

Did you want to suddenly have a completely different conversation?

Written by: Ju************nk

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Right but the reasons you gave were inaccurate.

There are issues with evolution but the few things you said I wanted to point out.

The points you made actually didn't address evolution either.

The non life to life thing isn't evolution.

Things giving birth to other things isn't necessarily evolution.

And the "no one has seen it" isn't exactly an accurate claim. Because the entire theory was based on observation of evidence.

So I was addressing your points and trying to make sure they were sort of mistaken arguments against evolution.

Evolution isn't really entirely true or entirely false. There are apects of it such as natural selection and common descent. Many creationists would not reject every part of evolutionary theory but instead claim the process isn't fast enough or incapable for all speciation.

When you say "evolution has never been seen" it's a misstatement. You mean the part of evolution you are disagreeing with specifically.

Basically, little in your original comment had to do with an actual issue with evolution and I was just trying to help you understand that.

We should be careful about making wild claims or hyperbole because we can get ourself stuck in a corner when we use the same arguments to try and promote something as we are using to debunk something. I wasn't beginning a discussion about YEC but simply pointing out the unsteady footing you were on with that argument.

Written by: bu****************er

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Honestly, you're not even remotely helpful.

Nobody has ever seen the key part of evolution that makes it worth talking about: nobody has ever seen new information / features arise out of absolutely nowhere. You're just being pointlessly difficult, not "helpful" like you say you are trying to be.

Knock it off.

If you want to help, you ask questions.

Written by: Ju************nk

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I couldn't agree with this comment more!

Written by: Go************ty

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Just be careful with your arguments. You won't find a scientist that thinks a dog might give birth to a rabbit with enough time. It is small shifts over great time. We do know that non-catastrophic dna changes can be conserved, and later changes can combine with those earlier non catastrophic changes to give rise to new functionality. It has been done with microbes.

The problem that most YEC's (and OEC creationists) point out is that it takes 10,000's of generations for even a very very simple new function to happen in a species that can spawn multiple new generations a day. And even then, the feature was only arguably new, as the population would have been rapidly out-competed and made extinct in any environment other than the specific one the lab created for them.

Evolution doesn't need a dog->rabbit jump in order to be true, but it does need to show that the odds of new functionality appearing in thousands or millions of years is likely enough to have happened millions of times in billions of years. Currently, they can't show that.

Written by: Te*****aa

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Again, all the "proof" for evolution is imagination. "This has arguably been done," no, you imagine it has happened. No new feature has just shown up.

You said, "they can't show that." Okay, and so that sounds like it's going to constantly have the goalposts moved so that it's not testable. (Since we test the heck out of bacteria, and we can't get them to do anything new. We can get them to eat weird crap, but we can't get them to grow some new feature.)

This is the very nature of a false religion--you can't put it to the test, and everything is taken by blind faith. "It would take too long to prove it, so I'm just going to believe it" is exactly what evolution is. 100% in the imagination, never in the real world, and never with proof.

Written by: Ju************nk

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

First of all, you got really aggressive there. We're all pretty friendly here, and I think you and I share a worldview, besides, so try to keep the discussion friendly. For the record, I am a YEC (I have the tag on so people don't misinterpret my posts...) who does believes in neither evolution nor a billions of years old Earth. We can discuss the age of the universe, as I am young-leaning for our solar system, but somewhat agnostic on the universe as a whole.

With that out of the way, I was referring to the E.Coli populations that were experimentally observed to develop aerobically on citrate. (E.Coli can normally only develop anaerobically on citrate) It is (arguably) a new feature. You seem to fall on the side of the argument that is not a new feature. I would probably agree with you, as the population did nothing new, but only something it could already do, now under new circumstances. However, I concede this case as being the best evolution has to offer, and I generally cite my reservations, but concede the definition. You have to engage a theory based on what its adherents actually claim in order to debate it. Evolutionists wouldn't expect steps much bigger than the steps in the citrate experiment, so they will cite it as proof that the phenomenon occurs. My strategy is to accept that as the best they have to offer, then easily knock it down on the basis that "evolution" is observed to be occurring many orders of magnitude too slow to account for the variety of life.

Saying "A dog has never given birth to a rabbit, (or 'no animal has ever given birth to a different animal'), therefore evolution is false.", is just knocking down a strawman because that isn't what evolution teaches. We are always (rightfully) very critical of our evolutionist opponents for doing this to us. e.g., "If evolution is true, why are monkeys still around". This isn't what creationism teaches, so knocking it down is pointless. You can rightly criticize them by calling it untestable, moving the goalposts, etc. But they will come right back with saying that God is untestable, etc. I have never been able to convince an atheist that this isn't the case, so I try to avoid the implication in the first place.

I was just cautioning you to try not to let your arguments fall into the strawman category. Like I said, love the enthusiasm, just be careful.

Written by: Te*****aa

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

What do you mean by "evolution?" I would say that allele frequencies do shift within populations over time, but I don't think that means that all life shares a common ancestor.

Written by: Ho*************st

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think maybe OP doesn't even know of this difference, he could have no science background. As a firm believer myself, I'm kinda disappointed that OP got bible verses as a first response, this is just going to confuse him.

Written by: AD***************or

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

  1. Evolution it's too slow to produce the large amounts of functional DNA we find in complex animals. I wrote a comment about that a few days ago, based on population genetics models. But you can reach the same conclusion by watching microbes evolve. It takes trillions of them just to evolve a few useful changes to their DNA.

  2. Genetic entropy. Complex animals get harmful mutations faster than selection can remove them. John Sanford has several papers on that. This one is a good summary.

Written by: Jo*****ea

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Those are two good reasons out of the many that are known.

Written by: Th*********an

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

this is like me going to the /r/atheism and asking "why is god not true?"

Straightaway, every atheist will say the burden of proof is on me to proof that god is true.

Similarly, burden of proof is on you to proof that evolution is true.

Of course, at this point of the conversation, the atheist will say that he does have evidence of evolution, such as the fossil records, etc. He finds it convincing evidence, me not so much.

And then the theist will also say that he has evidence too, such as there is life on this planet at all, or that we even have this planet at all. He thinks its convincing evidence too, the atheist not so much.

At the end of the day, it boils down to whose evidence you find more convincing. There will never be 100% conclusive evidence for something you can't see. The difference is, while the theist admits this, the evolutionist will never admit this, because anything short of 100% is not definite proof, and if his belief is based on something short of 100% conclusiveness he loses his right to mock a theist's faith.

That's kinda the whole story at the end of the day. I'm not a creationist nor an evolutionist, so please don't label me anything.

Written by: Wh*****ed

[–]CreationExposedMirror[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Charles Darwin said if the evolution theory was true you would be able to put every single organism that has existed on a row from oldest to youngest and see the changes which made them into what they are today. He said that this would be possible in about 50 to 100 years. It has now been 150 years and we still don't have any evidence to support such claims.

This is just one reason why evolution is false.

Written by: sa*******23