Replies

fishtank:

Yes, I read the article, it's a crock of rubbish & nonsense.
Worse, it reveals what I've seen happen in other denier-populations: they eventually break down into non-denial denials.
In other words, they end up splitting theological hairs that make no real difference.

So where to even begin?
How about here: by definition of the terms, "adaption" = 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection = basic evolution.
In short, adaption = evolution = adaption = evolution ad infinitum.
The only differences are short-term versus long-term, and they are the same thing.

So, for some people to say, "oh, I believe in adaption, but not evolution" is just rubbish and nonsense.
They are the same thing.

But, but, but, say the anti-evos, they're not the same, because adaption always requires loss of DNA data, or changes to existing data, but never additional new data as would be required for speciation.

Again, rubbish & nonsense.

In fact, DNA itself cares nothing about whether a modification subtracts, changes or adds data, so long as the resulting offspring survive, prosper and reproduce.
Consider any example you wish -- if certain offspring are born slightly better able to run upright on two legs while others are slightly better able to climb trees, which one has "added" and which "subtracted" DNA information?
The answer is, as far as DNA is concerned, it doesn't matter except as there may be more or fewer trees to climb near-by any given population.

So adaption = evolution = adaption = etc., etc.

null and void: "I find it interesting that some of the people who reject the possibility of evolution happening over 100’s of millions or even billions of years have no trouble with it all happening since The Flood."

Exactly, but they call it "adaption", in hopes that will protect them from the dreaded "e-word".

aMorePerfectUnion: "I consider the diversity of species to just be natural selection and not evolution. "

Except that adaption = evolution = adaption = etc.

RoadGumby: "Evolution, changing of an organism to something new, is not true.
Adaptation is."

Except that biologically, adaption & evolution are the same thing, period.

RoadGumby: "You can breed dogs all day long, get LOTS of different forms....of dogs.
Get back to me when you get a Non-Dog."

Dogs are a species of wolves (genus: cauis) and, in fact, there are nine other species of non-dog wolves, including the closely related Grey Wolves.
But DNA studies show that none of those other species are ancestors of dogs, so the actual ancestors went extinct some time in the past 30,000+ years.

Point is: the data shows that over the past 30,000+ years human beings have created a new species of wolves: dogs.

afsnco: "~~Evolutionists~~ modern sciences -- natural sciences -- reject a priori any hint of the supernatural.
But the supernatural is really the only explanation for even that most 'simple' single-celled organism."

Yes, agreed, but it's not just evolution theory, it's all of modern science -- see my correction above.
The name for all that is "methodological naturalism", and it means, in effect: when we put on our lab coats at work, we must set aside our religious beliefs in searching for natural explanations.

But it also means: when we take off our lab coats and go home to family and community, we can reassert our beliefs in the supernatural origins, guidance and destination of the natural realm.

afsnco: "Throw lifeless chemicals together and create life and prove creationists wrong."

All depends on your definition of that word, "life".
Already basic experiments have created pre-cursors of life, and theoretical work maps out some of its evolution to actual life.

boycott: "There should be far transitional fossils to support evolution.
The evidence just isn’t there."

Of course it is, literal tons of evidence.
But it's only visible to people who wish to see it.
You, for example, can stare at this photo all day long and never see a "transitional form". Why is that?

Theo: "Do you believe that sin preceded death, as the Scriptures teach?
Or that humanity developed out of cycles of life and death, as evolution teaches? "

Genesis 2 seems to me pretty clear on this: mankind was made out of dust, after which God breathed "the breath of life" into him and then man became a living soul.

Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

jimmyray: "Perhaps you dismiss 1 Timothy 6:19-21 as a minor detail, and no warning at all?"

No, it's not a "minor detail", it's a mistranslation in King James.
The original word actually means not "science" but rather "proto-Gnostics", and is now translated in most other Bibles as "false knowledge".
But it is not just any old "false knowledge", it's false spiritual knowledge, the very opposite of modern natural-science.
Natural science, by definition, is intended to be non-spiritual and therefore is not the target of Paul's warnings.

angryoldfatman: "this leads to the possibility that the Biblical Adam was not the first Homo sapiens, but instead was the first one with a soul."

Yes, indeed, Genesis 2 is explicit on that: 1) dust of the earth, 2) creation of man 3) then breath of life creating a living soul.
Really, it's not that hard, if people would just read it.

zot: " I agree that the seven 'days' of Genesis were not 24 hours long."

You're in good company because so do both Old Testament and New Testament:

Psalms 90:4 "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night."

2 Peter 3:8 "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

jimmyray: "You would have God actually speak a metaphor (lie, really) with His own voice, and subsequently write it with His own finger in stone (twice!)?
Is the length of a day in verse 9 different than the length of the day in verse 11?"

No, the Bible tells us clearly and unequivocally that God's day is not the same as ours, but He is totally satisfied if we keep one of our days Holy for Him.

Ostrich Boy: "And I have no idea why he won't admit he believes in Evolution."

It's theologians doing what theologians always do: splitting hairs, debating angels dancing on the head of a pin.

jimmyray: "Most creationists have no problem with rapid speciation, it's the evolutionary explanation for the origin of Genus we take issue with."

Now you're just blathering nonsense.

afsnco: "Both evolution and creation are faith-based beliefs."

Hardly, science is the opposite of "faith based", and totally depends on physical evidence.
It is also based on two great assumptions: 1) only natural explanations for natural processes and 2) processes we see today operated the same in Deep Time.

These assumptions are not just blind faith, since they are daily confirmed by innumerable observations (=facts) of people working in related fields, i.e., geology, paleontology, physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, etc., etc.