Belief in Evolutionism debunked by former evolutionist

You want me to post documentation of observed speciation? Are you sure you want me to do that? It's quite the cure for insomnia. Plus, this thread wasn't about posting evidentiary support for scientific theories. My point was to note the fact that speciation has been observed, not to post evidence for speciation. If you want me to, I will, but it will probably hijack the thread.

That's the same thing that is often said in the calvinism/arminiam argument, the premil/postmil/amil argument, and the israel argument. Similarly, a particular position on the creation/evolution debate is no more or less a requisite for believing the bible than the calvinism/arminiam argument, the premil/postmil/amil argument, and the israel argument.

The theory of evolition does not claim that "we came from monkeys". However, hypercreationists often say that evolution is impossible, despite the fact that scripture says that, with God, nothign is impossible. So to say that evolution is impossible is, using that same standard, a perversion.

That said, let me make it clear that I don't believe that the allowing a Christian to believe in the theory of evolution is a perversion; likewise, I don't believe that the belief that evolution is impossible is a perversion. Just to be clear there.

 

Yes. I want to see one species becoming another, not a long-winded cop-out.

Don't change the subject. We are dealing with creation, there is no way to read the bible, and come away with evolution. You cannot possibly argue the bible teaches anything but creation. Again, you post up a long-winded cop-out.

God cannot lie. The bible says as much. To say he can is a perversion.

Clear as mud. The evolutionist tells us we came from apes. That is a perversion. Reading science into Genesis is not. You seem to be telling us the same thing the serpent told Eve.

 

No one said God lied. God still created man. Just like in my water example. I put a glass of water in the freezer and an hour later I take it out and its ice. I can accurately say God made the water into ice. But its also correct to say that in an enviroment that the temperature is at 32 degrees fahrenheit or 0 degrees celcius or 273.15 Kelvin that water will freeze and solidify into ice. In either case I'm not less faithful to God to believe it occures both ways.

 

Will do. I expect the same, though: Once I post the information, I expect you to accept the fact that speciation has been observed, not a bait & switch of "one species of plant turning into another species of plant isn't speciation".

We're dealing with your statement of "You either believe the bible or you don't." The assertion fails with creation/evolution in the same manner that it fails in the calvinism/arminianism debate, or the premil/postmil/amil debate.

On the contrary. That's an example of eisegesis, which is wrong for the Christian to do. It's a common mistake Christians make, albeit usually benign.

I'd expect better of you to stoop to that level of infantile verbage. Disagreeing with a brother in Christ is one thing. Accusing them of saying "the same thing the serpent told Eve" is way out in left field, even for you.

 

I thought the eugenicist Darwin was a philosopher and that his ideas espoused in "On the Origin of the Species" and "Natural Selection" were intended to demonstrate an alternative to a creation by a God, in order to prove that God does not exist. Additionally, being a eugenicist, he was also motivated to demonstrate that some groups of humans were inferior to others and therefore less desirable. The result being population control in order to eliminate those inferior races of men which taint the gene pool.

It seems to me that Mr. Darwin was in direct opposition to at least several key teachings of the Bible, if not many. It perplexes me that Christians defend this man and his religion.

 

Here are doumented cases of speciation observed:


T. Mosquin, T. publshed a report in called "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", in which a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosomes from the original stock.

S. Stanley in 1979 reported in a publication called "Macroevolution: Pattern and Process" that the Faeroe Island mouse had been observed mutate into a new species over a period of approx 200 years of isolation on the island.

As early as 1971, Drosophila were observed over a 5 year period developing into a new species.

One of the earliest cases was when de Vries observed a new species of Ornithora. Ornithora gigas was observed speciating from Ornithora lamarckiana.

Rabe and Haufler in 1992 observed Adiantum pedatum mutating into a new species of fern.

Gottlieb in 1973 documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis.

The Rhagoletis pomonella has been observed since the late 1980's in nature to change at the chromosomal level when their food source changes.

Lastly, the Drosophila melanogaster fly has been demonstrated to speciate numerous times in both artificial and natural settings numerous times over the last 40 years.

I have a full list of bibliographical references, but it's the ultimate cure for insomnia.

 

Well, I was hoping you'd show a reptile turning into a mammal, or something concrete.

I refuse to turn this into a debate about what the bible says about anything, exceptcreation.

Wrong. There are scientific facts in Genesis. To ignore them is to be purposefully ignorant.

Telling someone the bible is not being truthful is exactly like what the serpent said. I don't care if you don't like it.

 

This is your proof we descended from apes ? That fish became birds ? It looks to me like plants reproducing after their own kind, and adapting to environments.

 

You asked for documentation showing speciation has occurred. All those examples are incidents of documented speciation.

That's not changing of species, that's changing genus or family. You expressly stated that changing from one species to another has not been observed. I've demonstrated that statement to be wrong. Now you're raising the bar from Species to Genus, or Genus to Family.

 

Note Dinosaurs became birds. Just to clarify the arguement. You issue is that you're taking the modern evolved animals and comparing them to other evolved animals rather than referring them to the phylogenetic tree. You would have better success.

 

In order for evolution to be true, the verse "after their own kind" would have to be a lie. You certainly haven't shown it is.

 

So what did this supposed mouse mutate into? A frog, a giraffe, a cow, a fish? Any records dating back 200 years on this subject would be quite questionable. The knowledge about DNA etc have increased greatly and there is no way to know that this particular species of mice jumped species, being based on records 200 years ago.

Into what? A cat

So it is within its own species?

Is this another inter species?

Into what an oak tree?

Which can be nothing more than dormant Chromosomes becoming active.

Into what an eagle? This is not evidence, this is claims by unknown people and claims have been known to be proved wild and crazy. "Scientists" declared a tooth to be that of a prehistoric man and it was later discovered that it was only a pig tooth. It is also known that some in the scientific fields will classify "species" conveniently so as to make it possible to make such unfounded claims.

 

This is it in a nutshell.

Evolution is bunk.

 

But of course if you are a hyperallegorist then you can impose whatever style of language on Genesis in order to justify your evolution. This is also a result of hypereisegesis, hyperantiliteralism, hyperpreconceivedagenda, hyperliberalism, hypergodlessagendaism, and hyperhyperism.

 

This word PEGS it!

Not sure it's a word, but it works nontheless. :laugh:

 

It is now................

 

I call the story of evolution "The Darwin Delusion." Considering the fact that animals can't breed human descendants any more than humans can breed animal descendants whether over a gazillion years or 9 months, then the story of evolution is not only a fairy tale, it's a delusion which can be explained by the following:

When writing a story, an author has to make up his characters before he can go on with his story. Since Darwin had no evidence of his characters in the real world, he had to conjure them up in his imagination. He simply looked for an alternative to the biblical account of the creation of man and said; "If man wasn't created by God, then where could he have come from? I know, something that already exists like...another animal. Hey, yeah...which animal looks like a human? An ape!"

So here's how the story of evolution began:

Once upon a time 500,000 years ago... no 750,000 years ago... no 2,000,000 years ago...I'll skip the setting and go on.

Once upon a long time ago, an ape,..no a monkey, no a half-human- half monkey...I'll skip that part too and just call him an ancestor common to...humans...no monkeys..no humans and monkeys...no, humans and some other unknown animal.

Once upon a long time ago a common ancestor, no many common ancestors, yeah, I'll stick with that...mated with a monkey..no an ape...

Needless to say, a story that didn't start well can't end well either. Nevertheless, because people were eagerly looking for an alternate explanation to God's creation, it wouldn't be hard at all for them to accept even a badly written fiction story that never got started.

Since Darwin never described his main characters, then he can't possibly know what they were capable of breeding. But again, since the public wanted even a badly written story, then Darwin left it to the imaginations of his readers to finish the story. But as expected, one can't finish a story that never even began which is why of course, no one today still knows the main characters (common ancestors) of Darwin's story.

But what makes his story a delusion, is that Darwin actually believed that his characters existed! It's bad enough when an author believes that characters he can describe existed, but when he believes that characters that he himself can't describe existed, then his story is even more delusional.

When God says that the wisdom of the world is foolishness in His sight, nothing proves Him right better than the story of evolution.

 

No evidence for this. This theory is a result of extrapolation rather than a viewable consistent set of links. And there are all kinds of theories on what happened to these supposed links. The bigger problem is that evolutionists refuse to even take a look at the fact that there are limits on the natural selection on DNA. God declared there is a boundary and you, DNA, will go no further. ( Genesis 1:11, 21, 25) How about that scripture speaks to uniformtarianism. They cannot account for this so they extrapolate that changes in DNA if taken to its, supposed conclusion, would lead to speciation. But this is a misapplication of extrapolation and , again, avoids DNA limits. Evolution further removes the fact that mutation always moves in the destructive direction hence we have (Romans 8:19-21). When science contradicts with scripture we need to side with scripture. It is always reliable and science is ever changing and unreliable.

 

Devilution is what it should be called. Satan is a liar and the father of it.

 

The only reason classification of species is a problem is that we do not have a complete historical record. Compare species with human age. If a space alien only had a picture of me as an infant and an old man he might conclude the pictures represented 2 species.

If you had picture of me taken every 10 years you could sort them into a chronological sequence and say "This is an infant, this a child, this is a teenager. . . . If you had a picture for every year or a smaller interval you would not be able to sort them and then say where infancy stops and childhood starts.

In the same way, if we had a complete photographic or DNA record of every critter one could not say exactly in which generation a new species was created.

>So what did this supposed mouse mutate into? A frog, a giraffe, a cow, a fish?

This question illustrates such a gross ignorance of the topic . . . .