Evidence of interspecies evolution? Sure, it's called evolution - google it sometime, you might learn something.
Interesting way of saying you don’t have any evidence but you choose to believe it on faith. Case and point of how some atheists use science as a religion, gents.
Thank you, Mauserless.
There is plenty of evidence in both book and documentary form that are available. It is therefore absurd for someone like myself to sit here and type out a 20 page dissertation on the subject at a online forum. It would be a colossal waste of time. Why? First, because if you haven't sought any of this information out before now then that strongly indicates that you really have no genuine interest in actually reading it. And secondly, religious people don't believe what they believe based on facts or logic and therefore you cannot sway their opinion with facts or logic. And lastly, I understand what I do about science because I have spent a lifetime interested in it and learning about it. If you haven't put in a similar amount of time educating yourself on the subject then no one an bring you up to speed in a few typed paragraphs on a message board. If you are genuinely interested I can recommend some good books and or documentaries on the subject.
“Can living cells arise from non-living chemicals?”
I am not aware of any demonstrable proof of this. Sure there is speculation, by the true believers, but it is only speculation. No proof…. Not even anything close to it in the lab.
Is “evolution” nothing more than a grand edifice built on nothing but unsubstantiated imaginations?
Gerd Muller has made comment on the inadequacy of “Darwinian” theory. Go ahead and find it….2016.
And…. What is called “micro evolution” is nothing more than genetic variation within a “kind.”
Those who point to “micro evolution” as “proof” of speciation and changes in”kind” are guilty of blurred scientific vision. Gerd Muller saw it…..
The fossil record is in fact an embarrassment to evolutionary biologists.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
“50,000 generations of fruit flies created in a lab…. Got big fruit flies….small fruit flies….flies with big wings…flies with no wings, red flies, green flies…
But ….ALL….we’re still fruit flies….this is what is now called “micro evolution” and is certainly NOT proof of evolution between kinds.
Look up Gerd Muller’s comments in 2016.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
“Can living cells arise from non-living chemicals?”
Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life. It deals with how life has evolved over millions of years but makes no attempt to explain it's origin.
The whole Genesis story is fiction - there's nothing useful about it except fanciful entertainment.
The whole book of Genesis is fiction? Or just the creation story? Genesis covers a lot of time and territory. Maybe billions of years.
Naw... Only 6000 years... /s
Whatever. But I would bet a lot of the book has a basis in real events. Cain and Abel could have been two tribes where a bunch of nomadic herders wiped out some farmers that were irritable over the nomad's animals eating their crops. As to the flood, we know the ocean spilled over into what is now the Black Sea, the deposing of Esau in a conspiracy by Jacob and his mother is believable. The slaughter of the Shechemites by Simeon's and Levi's men could easily be based in an event. Moving on further into the other books the destruction of Jericho probably did result from an earthquake at an opportune time. The David and Goliath story is believable in that a teenage sharpshooter could knock a huge opponent unconscious and then behead him with Goliath's own sword.
Surely a lot of the bible including Jesus' parables are allegories meant to convey a lesson but there are many cases where the historical parts have some basis in fact and real events. I'm sure the writers took some liberty and license in their recording of long ago oral history.
I think it's safe to say all the extraordinary events are bullshit.
A large chunk of it is demonstrabally factually and historically wrong.
Which of the examples I gave are demonstrably factually and historically wrong. Not suspect or unproven but factually proven false and ''bullshit''? There are plenty of examples I could have given that may have a base in actual events but that would take a while.
What you claim to have done is not necessarily what you have in fact done. No doubt that you honestly believe that you have made a case, but you are wrong.
The failure here is conflating the historical and factual parts of the bible with the fantastic supernatural elements of its stories. Where one can be true, the places, the kings, rulers, tribes, cities, etc, while the other, the supernatural portion, Good, gods, angels, demons, etc, are fictional.
Those who point to “micro evolution” as “proof” of speciation and changes in”kind” are guilty of blurred scientific vision. Gerd Muller saw it…..
Its all over the fossil record. One of the best examples is birds. We have an almost unbroken chain of representation from primitive archosaurs, to dinosaurs, to birds. This is a significant change in morphology, well beyond the species level.
There is plenty of evidence in both book and documentary form that are available. It is therefore absurd for someone like myself to sit here and type out a 20 page dissertation on the subject at a online forum. It would be a colossal waste of time. Why? First, because if you haven't sought any of this information out before now then that strongly indicates that you really have no genuine interest in actually reading it. And secondly, religious people don't believe what they believe based on facts or logic and therefore you cannot sway their opinion with facts or logic. And lastly, I understand what I do about science because I have spent a lifetime interested in it and learning about it. If you haven't put in a similar amount of time educating yourself on the subject then no one an bring you up to speed in a few typed paragraphs on a message board. If you are genuinely interested I can recommend some good books and or documentaries on the subject.
Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life. It deals with how life has evolved over millions of years but makes no attempt to explain it's origin.
Age of the earth seems to boil down to science vs religious beliefs fueled by the Bible. There are many religions in the world and most have Bible like books as part of their history. I wonder what these other pieces of literature say about the age of the earth. Do they all claim it is 6000 years old?
Age of the earth seems to boil down to science vs religious beliefs fueled by the Bible. There are many religions in the world and most have Bible like books as part of their history. I wonder what these other pieces of literature say about the age of the earth. Do they all claim it is 6000 years old?
We know 6,000 years is wrong, because there have been civilizations that were in full bloom longer ago than that.
Thanks, Willto, but I have to admit, after the first 2 videos, I considered the 3rd pointless. To Dr Wyhe’s own admission, at 3:45, “ there was not evidence for evolution for these pre-Darwinian scientists”. So everything depends on post-Darwinism. Okay.
“Could be evidence of” is much different than a continuous chain evidence that would make interspecies evolution a peer-reviewed irrefutable fact. What those videos provide is the best argument for non-creationism.
I’m a believer in survival of the fittest because it is recorded with continuous evidence. The Darwinian statement of “It must be” is replaced with the irrefutable term of “It is”. (ex: See these brightly colored insects? They were all preyed upon while their duller-colored version lived and procreated). Unfortunately, for the Theory of Evolution, it’s not a species change.
Survival of the fittest also does not address arrival of the fittest. Previous existence of any species has not been disproven.
And Indy is correct in eluding to the lack of scientific evidence proving all of Genesis correct…but that’s why its called “Faith.”. Faith belongs there….in the bible. Not in science. So when someone says they “Know” evolution has resulted in one species turning into another, they’re really saying they “Strongly believe” but are trying to point to fragments of evidence and say that’s all that is needed. Then they get personal when it’s details are debated.
Thanks, Willto, but I have to admit, after the first 2 videos, I considered the 3rd pointless. To Dr Wyhe’s own admission, at 3:45, “ there was not evidence for evolution for these pre-Darwinian scientists”. So everything depends on post-Darwinism. Okay.
“Could be evidence of” is much different than a continuous chain evidence that would make interspecies evolution a peer-reviewed irrefutable fact. What those videos provide is the best argument for non-creationism.
I’m a believer in survival of the fittest because it is recorded with continuous evidence. The Darwinian statement of “It must be” is replaced with the irrefutable term of “It is”. (ex: See these brightly colored insects? They were all preyed upon while their duller-colored version lived and procreated). Unfortunately, for the Theory of Evolution, it’s not a species change.
Survival of the fittest also does not address arrival of the fittest. Previous existence of any species has not been disproven.
And Indy is correct in eluding to the lack of scientific evidence proving all of Genesis correct…but that’s why its called “Faith.”. Faith belongs there….in the bible. Not in science. So when someone says they “Know” evolution has resulted in one species turning into another, they’re really saying they “Strongly believe” but are trying to point to fragments of evidence and saying that’s all they need. Then they get personal when it’s debated.
Sounds like religion to me.
Please explain how a Ring Species is not evidence for evolution.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Please explain how a Ring Species is not evidence for evolution.
Especially when, due to hundred of thousands of years of genetic drift and adaptation to slightly different environmental pressures, they are incapable of reproducing with the original species.
![[Linked Image]](https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/gallery/80/full/231057.jpeg)
