Would you allow evolutionists to teach Sunday School?

"As does common designer and common location."

Explain then. Why would a common designer give these animals a non-functioning version of a gene all broken in the same, exact manner? Especially since they all have working versions of the other three genes that can now do nothing of use.

"There is no evolutionary explanation for the fact that God said He specially made man from the dust of the earth and breathed the breath of life into Him."

It does not address such.

"That is an unfounded claim unless you deny the supernatural."

What? I say it is unlikely that you would have got a few percent of your genome added through retroviral inserts in 10 generations and none since. I say that it is unlikely that all the other ape species would have also had the exact same insertions added in the same time period at the same locations.

What does the supernatural have to do with it? Are you suggesting God supernaturally placed matching viral DNA into all the apes, including us, during the first several generations and has decided not to do so since? Where does this logic come from? I do not see the basis for the assertion. It is non-sensical.

 

Like someone said in an earlier post, someone shouldn't be teaching the Bible who doesn't believe in it.

 

I didn't say that is what happened. I suggested that several species that shared a common genetic attribute and while confined to a contiguous area (relatively small but possibly as large as a continent if there were sufficient interactions between groups) were exposed to an event that destroyed the portions of each population that had a functioning version of this gene. Yes, this explains why only those broken in a single specific way would have made survival possible.

Thanks for providing an example to my point. God said He did it supernaturally. Evolution disregards this possibility because it does not fit the assumption of a naturalistic explanation for all observations.

Absolutlely everything if you believe in God at all. Your statement is telling with regard to your bias though. You reject the supernatural as a knee jerk reaction.

Please read what I say rather than reading into what I say.

God from the beginning made kinds that shared genetic attributes and characteristics and even gene designs. Those kinds "devolved" in to more specialized species.

Also apes as a matter of fact, may have had a common ancestor. Not one that they have evolved up from but rather specialized down from.

So I am not saying that God did something supernaturally after the fact but rather that something He did by design at the start resulted in a common reaction afterwards.

 

"I suggested that several species that shared a common genetic attribute and while confined to a contiguous area (relatively small but possibly as large as a continent if there were sufficient interactions between groups) were exposed to an event that destroyed the portions of each population that had a functioning version of this gene. Yes, this explains why only those broken in a single specific way would have made survival possible."

Possible mechanism that would result in only certain species in a certain area recieving such a specific mutation?

Also remember that such an occurance would have to be repeated over and over and over with slightly different changes each time to account for all the such pseudogenes in life.

And remember that by comparing the same genes across a number of species, you can tellwhen the various lines split off from the common ancestors. These always seem to match up when using different lines of evidence. Even non-coding DNA.

"You reject the supernatural as a knee jerk reaction."

Not at all. But I question the leap to a supernatural explanation when there is a natural one that explains it perfectly and does not require a leap for which there is no logic. For example, there is no logic for why whales would have pseudogenes for olfactory senses by supernatural means. Sure, God could have done it, but it makes no logical sense. Common descent requires no such leap and is backed up by fossil and other genetic data.

"God from the beginning made kinds that shared genetic attributes and characteristics and even gene designs."

Precicely why I said I prefer to deal with things like pseudogenes, chimeric genes, retroviral inserts, and other situations where a common designer does not make sense. Unless you believe in a very sloppy common designer leaving broken and useless bits scattered all over the place.

"Also apes as a matter of fact, may have had a common ancestor."

You can create phylogenic trees from various lines of evidence to do point to them having a common ancestor. But those trees always follow the same essential pattern and always include man.

"God from the beginning made kinds that shared genetic attributes and characteristics and even gene designs. "

But the genes follow a pattern of evolution, both the functional and non-functional genes.

"Those kinds "devolved" in to more specialized species."

Evidence? For instance, what is the origin of all the different alleles both within a species and among the species you would say came from the same kind, whatever a "kind" is?

 

None of this is more fantastic in my opinion than events that evolutionists say must have occurred. Massive numbers of beneficial mutations that add genetic information had to have occurred when this is simply not what is observed in nature.

You just contradicted yourself.

Why? Because you don't see the sense in it or because there is no possible sense to it? Have we not found that vestigal organs may have a purpose after all? Have we not found that "junk DNA" may have a purpose after all?

You speak as if all of the data is in and has been thoroughly researched concluding with an absolute certain answer. You know this isn't the case.

I am going to make possibly the most obvious statement in history: It doesn't have to make sense to you to be true. The gospel doesn't make sense to the lost. That will not change their fate if they remain unrepentant.

I believe that the fall of man resulted in a curse of hardship, disease, want, etc. on man and all of creation. The details aren't given but there is a requirement in the curse that genetics change.

Once again we reach the impasse. Your responses aren't facts. They are interpretations of facts based on the assumption of only a natural interpretation... and a very narrow one at that designed specifically to point back to evolution.

Observation shows that living things can specialize and separate from the parent species.

I point to the same evidence you do. That animals were different in the past and that they have undergone speciation. While you say they have evolved up, a process not witnessed in nature. I say the have specialized down- which we do observe in nature.

I believe that horses and donkeys share a common ancestor. However their speciation represents a loss rather than gain of genetic information. I believe the common ancestor was more complex than either of them and thus more highly adaptable. This easily explains how speciation could occur without extinction.

Evolution leaves transitionals highly vulnerable to extinction.

 

Point.

In Christ,

Bob

 

How sad for you.

In Mark 2:27-28 Christ makes reference to BOTH the MAKING of the Literal seventh DAY at creation week AND to the MAKING of mankind during Creation week.

But you have to read it - to know it.

In John 1 - The GOSPEL of John BEGINS with the context AND foundation of Christ as MAKER - CREATOR of ALL life and ALL things such that "NOTHING" comes into being without His direct act.

This is considered by NT authors to be the BASIS from which the Gospel springs. Christ the REAL Creator is Christ the REAL Savior.

Hard to miss.

In Matt 5 Christ argues that FROM THE BEGINNING God created mankind - male and female and then QUOTES Gen 2 as the BASIS and LITERAL fact behind the institution of Marriage.

Paul APPEALS to the literal fact that Adam WAS CREATED directly by God and WAS CREATED FIRST.

Your entire premise in your argument above is of the form "SCRIPTURE doesn't count unless REPEATED again by Christ".

So is it any wonder that such defense damage-control thinking that is of the form "evolutionism-at-all-cost-to-scripture" is not a sought after attribute in a Bible teacher?

Lets be serious.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Todd responds to UTEOTW's charge that Christ had no concern for God's Word as it STARTS with the "account" of the creation

Good point Todd!

Christ appeals to the LITERAL truth of the Genesis to account regarding the institution of Marriage - based on the FACT of Adam and Eve and the FACT of the Garden -- to make His CASE.

As Todd points out Christ said "AT THE BEGINNING God MADE them" - man and woman - Adam and Eve.


What beginning? "IN the Beginning God created the heavens AND the earth".

What beginning - the beginning of earth and all life on it. AT that Beginning is where Adam is created.

In Luke 3 we see the REAL human ancestors of Christ - and there we see Adam NAMED as well as his son and grandson and ...

The notion millions of years of ancestors needed to get from Adam to Christ - does not come from Luke 3 - does not come from scripture... but is a story often told by atheist evolutionists along with Christian evolutionists.

And so -- why not have them as Bible teachers?

In Christ,

bob

 

"Massive numbers of beneficial mutations that add genetic information had to have occurred when this is simply not what is observed in nature."

We have a thread on just this.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=66;t=000021;p=0

If you read it you will see that there are many example of beneficial observation being observed and through many different mechanisms. The thread only scratches the surface. But here are a few papers from the thread that you may want to look up. I suggest the thread as a read for you.

"Selective sweep of a newly evolved sperm-specific gene in Drosophila," Nurminsky DI, Nurminskaya MV, De Aguiar D, Hartl DL, Nature. 1998 Dec 10;396(6711):572-5.

"Adaptive evolution after gene duplication," Hughes AL, Trends Genetics, 2002 Sep.18(9):433-4.

"Accelerated protein evolution and origins of human-specific features: Foxp2 as an example," Zhang J, Webb DM, Podlaha O, Genetics. 2002 Dec;162(4):1825-35.

"Syncytin is a captive retroviral envelope protein involved in human placental morphogenesis," Mi S, Lee X, Li X, Veldman GM, Finnerty H, Racie L, LaVallie E, Tang XY, Edouard P, Howes S, Keith JC Jr, McCoy JM, Nature 2000 Feb 17;403(6771):785-9.

"Origin of antifreeze protein genes: A cool tale in molecular evolution," John M. Logsdon Jr. and W. Ford Doolittle, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA,Vol. 94, pp. 3485-3487, April 1997.

DeVries, A. L. & Wohlschlag, D. E. (1969) Science 163, 1073-1075.

"A carrot leucine-rich-repeat protein that inhibits ice recrystallization," Worrall D, Elias L, Ashford D, Smallwood M, Sidebottom C, Lillford P, Telford J, Holt C, Bowles D, Science. 1998 Oct 2;282(5386):115-7.

"Recruitment of a double bond isomerase to serve as a reductive dehalogenase during biodegradation of pentachlorophenol," Anandarajah K, Kiefer PM Jr, Donohoe BS, Copley SD, Biochemistry 2000 May 9;39(18):5303-11.

"The Tre2 (USP6) oncogene is a hominoid-specific gene," Paulding CA, Ruvolo M, Haber DA, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science U S A 2003 Mar 4;100(5):2507-11.

"The human genome contains many types of chimeric retrogenes generated through in vivo RNA recombination," Anton Buzdin*, Elena Gogvadze, Elena Kovalskaya, Pavel Volchkov, Svetlana Ustyugova, Anna Illarionova, Alexey Fushan, Tatiana Vinogradova and Eugene Sverdlov, Nucleic Acids Research, 2003, Vol. 31, No. 15 4385-4390.

"The narrow sheath Duplicate Genes: Sectors of Dual Aneuploidy Reveal Ancestrally Conserved Gene Functions During Maize Leaf Development," Michael J. Scanlona, K. David Chenb, and Calvin C. McKnight, IV, Genetics, Vol. 155, 1379-1389, July 2000.

"The maize duplicate genes narrow sheath1 and narrow sheath2 encode a conserved homeobox gene function in a lateral domain of shoot apical meristems," Judith Nardmann1, Jiabing Ji, Wolfgang Werr, and Michael J. Scanlon, Development 131, 2827-2839 (2004).

 

"You just contradicted yourself."

Nope. You need to read the sentence that follows for an example. Whales have the genes for a sense of odor that match the ones that the type of animal we think they evolved from have. But they are disabled. Do we need to make the leap that God placed these useless genes in there through supernatural means ut without purpose? No. Especially when we have fossil and other genetic evidence that shows they gotthese gnes through evolution from a land dwelling ancestor.

"Why? Because you don't see the sense in it or because there is no possible sense to it?"

There is no possible sense for whales to have genes that do not work for something that they could not use if the genes did work if they were recently created by an intelligent designer.

"Have we not found that vestigal organs may have a purpose after all? "

Vestigal only means that it no longer has its original purpose. It may still serve a purpose. But some vestigal things are useless. The whale olfactory genes for example. Whales also have vestigal genes for aspects of eyesight that are no longer needed in their enviroment. You have muscles to wiggle your ears. You likely have a muscle (some people have two, some one, some none) that was used by an ancestor of your to pull your arm forward when it was a leg.

And some really is junk. We have thread on this too.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/15.html?

Much of it really is junk. Like all those retroviral inserts.

YOu may have read recently that the people doing the human genome work had to vastly ratcher down their estimate of the number of genes. This is because the genome is littered with the debris of gene duplications and these duplicates were getting counted multiple times.

"I am going to make possibly the most obvious statement in history: It doesn't have to make sense to you to be true. The gospel doesn't make sense to the lost. That will not change their fate if they remain unrepentant. "

Which ahs nothing to do with making the fossil record and the genetic record make sense outside of common descent. It is a red herring.

"While you say they have evolved up, a process not witnessed in nature."

Not true. We have both observed speciation in the present and large changes in the past through the fossil record.

"I believe that horses and donkeys share a common ancestor."

They do. In fact, if you keep going back, there is a fossil record that shows that these two share an ancestor with the rhinos and tapirs, also. And would you not know it, the genetics tell the same story. Amazing since you say it is not true that two disparate line of evidence would agree.

"However their speciation represents a loss rather than gain of genetic information. I believe the common ancestor was more complex than either of them and thus more highly adaptable. "

Evidence. What makes you think the common ancestor was more complex?

"Evolution leaves transitionals highly vulnerable to extinction."

Yep. Most are endpoints on the bush and not branches. But a few are more successful than others.

 

UT, Have you seen this:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/12/9/170000.shtml

 

No. It is the absolute most critical point in any debate you undertake on this subject although I know it would be highly inconvenient for you to acknowledge it.

Your interpretations are not any sort of final authority. The best you can ever say is that this idea or that idea is plausible. You would be required to eliminate all other possibilities to do that- but you haven't. In fact, you have corrupted your own evaluation by philosophically assuming that the natural explaination is to be preferred over the supernatural. If one believes in the God described in the Bible, this is a most irrational starting point.

We have not observed upward evolution. The speciation we observe is either a shift within the existing genetic variability or a loss of information. We do not see animals gaining genetic attributes that were not part of the original genetic make-up.

For instance, the famous moths in England. They didn't gain an ability to change color that had not existed before. Conditions simply favored one color or the other... but the genetic variability to produce either color existed in the original population. It was not gained.

You cannot point to the fossil record for that is the absolute purview of speculation/interpretation. Whether you like to admit it or not, there are valid alternative explanations to yours and that of evolution. You may think them improbable but that matters not. Things that we deem improbable are quite often true.

Or, from the original "horse" kind, there descended a now extinct animal that shared some physical attributes with rhinos and tapirs while in reality they were not related at all.

Once again, you assume authority for a model built on speculation. It is a working model. I don't dispute that. I dispute that it is the ONLY working model.

What we observe in nature right now.

Some animals still retain a measure of variability. This variability does not move them up an evolutionary chain since they are not gaining information. When certain genetic traits give a portion of the population an advantage, that trait is accentuated and we see the group diverge from the major species. If that group is isolated long enough under the right environmental conditions, certain traits from the parent group can be bred out completely.

Or, the other interpretation is that descendents from the original highly variable animals have diverged, speciated in the way we observe in nature today (by loss of info or shift of priority within existing capability), then have been caught in disadvantageous environmental conditions rendering them extinct.

 

"UT, Have you seen this:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/12/9/170000.shtml "

I skimmed through something on it last night. SO I have seen it but i would not say I am familar with it.

"No. It is the absolute most critical point in any debate you undertake on this subject although I know it would be highly inconvenient for you to acknowledge it."

I have no problem admitting that God does influence the world in supernatural ways for His will.

But, we must apply Occam's razor here. We can go through data from whatever field you choose. Biology, paleontology, astronomy, etc. And in each of these we can describe a means which yields the given results without invoking a supernatural requirement. You are adding an unneeded complication.

Common descent is the simplest means to explain, for example, the evidence we have with regard to whales. We have fossil intermediates that span from fully land dwelling, to amphibious, to fully marine. We have data from the ratios of isotopes of oxygen that give the same answer as the bones to how much times each of these spent in the ocean. We have genetic evidence that points to the family that the fossils indicate they evolved from is the same as what the genetics tell us. We have molecular and morphological vestiges. There are the remains of limbs even in modern whales. Modern whales contain pseudogenes of the olfactory genes that land dwelling animals use. We can use ontogeny. During the development of whales, the embryos go through a period where they have tiny limbs which are then reabsorbed. There are atavisms. Occasionally whales are found with legs that look remarkably like those of land animals.

Now you can hypothesize about all this in a young earth. What we think are intermediates were just other created kinds that have died out. The oxygen ratios just happen to match and are not real. The genetics do not really show a connection: deer and whales are so obviously similar that we should expect them to have the same genetics through a common designer. God gave the whales non-functional olfactory genes for a purpose which we are unable to understand. The remains of the legs actually serve a purpose. The designer just made them look like vestigal legs to keep from having to come up with a better design. The legs on the embryos are there just because the designer reused the developmental genes instead of tayloring them for the whales specifically. And the atavistic limbs are just wierd birth defects that happen to have normal looking leg bones out of coincidence.

Can you see now why your logic is both incredibly more complicated and not grounded in any sort of logic?

"The best you can ever say is that this idea or that idea is plausible. You would be required to eliminate all other possibilities to do that- but you haven't."

Common descent is the best explanation for the data we have. If you think it is not, then you have the burden of proof to show the factual errors AND to give us an explanation that better fits the data. Thus far, you only seem willing to commit to nebulous ideas about how we don't know everything and how it might be different. As shown above, you currently can only create more problems and give a more far fetched answer that what I present.

"In fact, you have corrupted your own evaluation by philosophically assuming that the natural explaination is to be preferred over the supernatural. If one believes in the God described in the Bible, this is a most irrational starting point."

Nope. Just that the natural explanation fits the data the best. The supernatural explanation makes most of what we see into arbitrary static with no rhyme or reason. Whales can have atavistic legs through a supernatural means of which we do not know the purpose. Whales were supernaturally given non-functional olfactory genes for reasons we cannot understand. Humans and the other apes were given a few percent of their genome as the exact same retroviral DNA in the exact same locations and with a pattern of mutation that fits the same phylogenic tree as all other lines of evidence through supernatural means for which we do not know the purpose.

"We do not see animals gaining genetic attributes that were not part of the original genetic make-up."

Yes we do. I gave you about a dozen examples of new, beneficial mutations above. Did you not notice?

"We have not observed upward evolution."

What is "upward" evolution?

"You cannot point to the fossil record for that is the absolute purview of speculation/interpretation."

It is not just the fossil record. Evolution can be very convincingly demonstrated without ever referring to the fossil record.

"Whether you like to admit it or not, there are valid alternative explanations to yours and that of evolution."

Then give them. And tell us how they are falsifiable.

"Things that we deem improbable are quite often true."

Absolutely. It is a two way street though.

"Or, from the original "horse" kind, there descended a now extinct animal that shared some physical attributes with rhinos and tapirs while in reality they were not related at all."

You have to go all the way back to Eohippus, the so called dawn horse to find the connection. You are now talking about a small creature of about 20 lbs (horses are bigger) , with four toes in front and three in back (horses have one toe per foot), with pads on the feet (instead of hooves), with radically different teeth, and many other grand differences from modern horses to find the creature that relates to the rhinos.

If you believe that came from the original "horse" kind then you believe in a much more rapid and much more far reaching form of evolution than what I accept.

But the fossils are found in the wrong order for you. Eohippus is at the bottom with the very closely related ancestor of the rhinos. As you move up through the layers, they diverge into the horses and the rhinos. Not the other way around.

And, even though you claim that "in reality they were not related at all," the genetics agrees with the fossils.

"...since they are not gaining information."

Wrong. New information is observed.

"Or, the other interpretation is that descendents from the original highly variable animals have diverged."

They could not have been highly variable. If they went through the ark, then there were only two of each. Or seven of some. But with two, you can only have at most four versions of a given allele. This is not hightly variable. THis is a genetic bottleneck!

 

No. It is secular dogma which also happens to dictate funding in research labs. It is the best documented because alternative views are not funded nor pursued unless they specifically answer a problem with support for evolution.

Thus far, the billions in research grants have gone to people with a preconceived bias for evolution and against anything that presupposes a creative God.

Nope. Only one that isn't dressed up in technical language and "proofs" predicated on unestablished, illogical presuppositions.

Which of those involved a species adding genetic complexity in order to evolve into another species under actual scientific observation? I do not accept your speculation about what may have happened before recorded history.

One species evolving into another more advanced species in the natural world... not in the mind of a theorist nor on the paper of an illustrator.

Where? Where has one species evolved into another species by gaining genetic information not transmitted by one of its parents?

Red herring. Evolution is not falsifiable. Its baseline, core assumption is that all things have a natural cause. That is not falsifiable.

 

Fine. You believe all that. Give me the better explanation for the whale data I have given you. Explain the fossil record, the genetic record, the molecular vestiges, the physical vestiges, the ontology, and the atavisms better than common descent. With a falsifiable theory.

"Evolution is not falsifiable."

think you are confused. Biology, as good science, is falsifiable. Your assertions about YE are the ones that are not falsifiable. You will not pin yourself down specifically enough to any particular mechanism that can be falsified because you know that if you do it will be falsified. Look above for a prime example.

Some of the classic example of potential falsification for evolution would be things like finding undeniable mammal fossils in undeniable pre-Cambrian deposits. Or finding a dinosaur eating a human. But we can do better.

For instance, one evidence for evolution is that phylogenetic trees can be constructed for extant and fossil organisms from morphology. With the advent of molecular and genetic testing, these trees can be produced from lines of evidence completely independent of morphology. If we regularly found that trees from different lines of evidence were statistically dissimilar, this would be a falsification of evolution. Do you have any such data?

There are many examples of transitional creatures in the fossil record. But these invariably follow the rules of the nested heirarchy and phylogenetic trees. For instance, you expect to find, and do find, fossils intermediate between reptiles and birds. A falsification would be to instead find, say, a half mammal / half bird fossil. This would not fit the rules. Do you have any such evidence?

Another consequence of evlution is atavisms. This occurs when a trait from an anestor makes a reappearance in an individual. Some example are atavistic legs on whales and atavistic tails on some humans. Evolution would not be able to explain atavisms that did not match the scientific history. For example, mammal-like nipples on a reptile or feathers on a mammal would not be able to be explained. Do you have any such evidence?

A related example comes from embryology and developmental biology. Ontogeny can reveal details about phylogeny. For example, two bones in a developing reptile for its jaw. The same two bones in a mammal fetus form the bones of the ear. (There happens to be a series of intermediate fossils that show the reptile jaw turning into the mammal ear.) Human embryos have tails which are reabsorbed. Whales and snakes form limbs which are reabsorbed by birth. Falsification would come from finding ontogeny that did not match phylogeny. For instance, finding legs which are reabsorbed on a developing fish. Do you have any such evidence?

So see, evolution is falsifiable.

 

"Which of those involved a species adding genetic complexity in order to evolve into another species under actual scientific observation?"

I think they all involved more genetic complexity. I gave you the full references. Google them and read the abstracts. I bet for some you could even find the whole paper.

"I do not accept your speculation about what may have happened before recorded history."

I believe there were examples in there that have been observed by us humans.

"Only one that isn't dressed up in technical language and "proofs" predicated on unestablished, illogical presuppositions."

First, you answer leaves most in the category of you don't know why an intelligent designer would do such an illogical thing.

Two, you have yet to show that I am using any "illogical presuppositions."

"One species evolving into another more advanced species in the natural world... not in the mind of a theorist nor on the paper of an illustrator."

OK then, what is "more advanced?"

I think this also calls for an analogy.

A boy scout troop goes on a field trip to a redwood forest. A ranger starts explaining these grand trees. He gets to the part where the trees have taken thousands of years to grow and one of the little boy's stops him and says that this is impossible. Why, the ranger asks. Because no one was around to observe the forest grow, we cannot possibly know that this is how it happened. The ranger tries to explain how slow growingthe trees are but the little boy will hear nothing of it. How can anyone know they grow that slowly if no one has watched a tree grow for its entire life he asks. The ranger explains about watching the rate at which the trees grow now. The boy will not accept that this means that they always grow at this rate. The ranger points out counting tree rings. Again the boy points out that no one has observed all those rings being put it place to know that they are annual. Theranger explains how you can carbon date the rings. No acceptance. The ranger points out how particular rings can be linked to events at a known time that leave characteristic evidence. Still the boy refuses to accept.

But none of us doubt that a redwood forest exists even though none of us have ever observed one grow to maturity.

So it is with evolution. We can observe the mechanisms. We see mutations happen. We see novel proteins and new traits come from these mutations. We observe change in isolated populations. We see new adaptations arise. We see new species form. We see some species go extinct. We can see the pace that these things take. We can look in the fossil record and see many examples of transitions. Whether it is the reptile to mammal transition or the whales or the horses or us or birds or fish to amphibians or any of a long list, we can se the transitions. We can examine the genetic data and see that it matches the fossil data.

In short, we have what we need. We have examples of it happening through long periods and we have examples of the mechanisms operating on times familar to us. Just like a redwood forest, evolution can exist without the need for a single human to observe changes on the scale of millions of years.

 

Who or what says that something must be falsifiable by natural means in order to be true?

Nope. I stated specifically what I was talking about and you didn't even attempt to answer my charge.

Biology as a practical science is neither equivalent to nor dependent on evolution.

You will not define where God directly commanded creation because at the point you do you will have acknowledged that the founding presupposition of evolution is false.

By observation or imagination? Can the same group of facts be collated differently to arrive at a different conclusion? My contention is that it can but that the bias for evolution within scientific academia would treat such explanations as heresy... just as you do when someone offers alternative possibilites.

I have neither time nor the means to perform conclusive testing. I am submitting possibilities that coicide with my personal, albeit limiited, observations.

Yes you start with the premise that genetic similarities require a common ancestor and then conclude that genetic similarities prove a common ancestor... a fine case of circular reasoning.

The problem is that the simple fact that we don't find this is not a proof for evolution.

Did I claim to be a research scientist that somehow tricked the establishment into giving me a grant to disprove the pillars of evolution?

Don't try to play that condescension with me. The fact that you have been loaded up with the teachings of evolution does not make it true.

Again, the details and proofs that you possess are absolutely useless so long as the theory itself is built on a false premise.

None of what you posted falsifies evolution. The facts involved can be explained in other ways that support evolution therefore disproving one of them doesn't falsify the theory.

In fact, this practically infinite flexibility is another demonstration that it is not falsifiable. Additionally, you if something doesn't fit the general model it can be called an anomaly. Those are two very valuable outs when you must contend that evolution is falsifiable.

However, you never went to the core premise. Is it true or not that all things must have a naturalistic explanation? Is either "yes" or "no" falsifiable?

 

No. Only that I am humble enough not to impose my interpretation of what is logical on the Intelligent Designer.

My starting point is that man must agree with God not that God must agree with man.

 

You made the claim. You should substantiate it.

Cite one. Layman's language please. I can usually decipher the technical jargon but it gives me a head ache.

How many times or different ways must I say it? You are operating in a theory that presumes that everything observed in the natural world is the result of a natural cause and only a natural cause. Follow this back, as did the guy cited in the article I linked, and you come to a point where evolution cannot give a prime cause. You don't even have to go back to the very beginning of the universe. Evolution cannot give a prime cause for life on earth without violating its own premise.

Evolution fails logic.

"One species evolving into another more advanced species in the natural world... not in the mind of a theorist nor on the paper of an illustrator."

Your analogy fails right here. No one has observed any of evolutions "rings being put into place".

We have not observed speciation in which an animal acquires a genetic attribute not owned by a parent.

Carbon dating has a limit that would make it acceptable to date a tree. Pre-historic fossils lie outside its statistically accurate range.

Right. Events KNOWN to have occurred. Not speculated to have occurred by circular reasoning and speculation.

What we don't see is mutations that create new species that have acquired genetic information from a source other than the parents. Very simply- we don't see the types of changes needed for evolution nor do the mechanisms we observe result in evolution.

Please list the species that has formed as a direct result of a genetic characteristic not inherited from its parents.

I disagree. You have conveniently interpretted things according to a paradigm. That is all that these details are able to do. You have yet to address why this is the only valid explanation or what the prime cause is for evolution.

 

Is that your way of describing half-reptile/half-bird fossils?

Or is that your way of describing "stories easy enough to make up - but they are not science".

In Christ,

Bob