-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Dinosaurs are fake and leads to atheism!
- Thread starter Ktoyou
- Start date
For those of you who think Skeeter's point about asexual reproduction accounting for less speciation was a good one...
First all at it wasn't a good point from ANY perspective. He completely ignored the fact that there has been an e coli experiment running continuously since 1987! That's coming up on 35 YEARS of an experiment where generations tick off every 15 - 20 minutes! That's over 6 MILLION generations!
HOWEVER! His point about asexual reproduction was as predictable as the sunrise!
There have been evolutionary studies run for over 100 years with fruit flies, which do reproduce sexually. A fruit fly generation is 10-12 days. That's about 30 generations a year. The study started in July of 1910 so we'll round to the nearest whole year and call that 112 years. 30 generations a year times 112 years gives you 3360 generations. This is actually a far smaller number than has actually reproduced in these studies because there have been many running at the same time. If you have ten separate populations of fruit flies (there's way more than that) then you'd be talking about 33,600 opportunities for genetic "evolution" to occur.
Not only that but these generations have not been merely permitted reproduce in an unmolested, natural fashion. They've come up with dozens of ways to induce all kinds of genetic changes.
Guess what?
No evolution observed! None!
The survivors of 100 years of lab torture are still just fruit flies.
Clete
100 Years of Fruit Fly Tests Show No Evolution
First all at it wasn't a good point from ANY perspective. He completely ignored the fact that there has been an e coli experiment running continuously since 1987! That's coming up on 35 YEARS of an experiment where generations tick off every 15 - 20 minutes! That's over 6 MILLION generations!
HOWEVER! His point about asexual reproduction was as predictable as the sunrise!
There have been evolutionary studies run for over 100 years with fruit flies, which do reproduce sexually. A fruit fly generation is 10-12 days. That's about 30 generations a year. The study started in July of 1910 so we'll round to the nearest whole year and call that 112 years. 30 generations a year times 112 years gives you 3360 generations. This is actually a far smaller number than has actually reproduced in these studies because there have been many running at the same time. If you have ten separate populations of fruit flies (there's way more than that) then you'd be talking about 33,600 opportunities for genetic "evolution" to occur.
Not only that but these generations have not been merely permitted reproduce in an unmolested, natural fashion. They've come up with dozens of ways to induce all kinds of genetic changes.
Guess what?
No evolution observed! None!
The survivors of 100 years of lab torture are still just fruit flies.
Clete
100 Years of Fruit Fly Tests Show No Evolution
Last edited:
Derf
Well-known member
So you need "coordinated randomness"? I hope you can see how sophomoric that is.
The hallmark of evolution is natural selection which is actually very systematic. You freshman keep thrusting the chance factor forward recklessly. Try and remember that evolution requires less random input as an organism becomes more sophisticated. See you on Freshman day! https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=freshman day
Derf
Well-known member
I figured you wouldn't understand.
Right Divider
Body part
What system might that be? Natural selection can only select what already exists. It is NOT a creative force.
Because in a world without a Creator... chance is all that you atheists have.
More vacuous claims.
You don't understand the problem. If your claim were true the LUCA would have had to have the superset of all subsets we see today. You'll have to explain that.
And on another note, I'd like to point out that lately people that believe in common descent have changed their rhetoric about the LUCA. It has become fashionable to claim that there were many Origin of Life events at roughly the same time because the sheer stupidity of claiming that all the diversity of life coming from a single common ancestor is looking more and more preposterous even to laymen that believe what they are told about origins without question.
So it only means that a chemical process, OOL, that is claimed to not be a part of common descent is being more closely linked to common descent and must be discussed. But this creates an OPPORTUNITY for people that believe in common descent! Having no evidence for OOL and a mountain of evidence against it means the lie that it occurred can be even bigger! And as those that believe in OOL know, the bigger the lie the more effective it can be - but only if it can be told over and over without opposition.
But until you bring some evidence, I'm compelled to believe the existing evidence that says the earth is young, the flood was worldwide, and common descent by random-undirected-mutations + natural selection is wrong.
Sure, you don't have to settle with the evidence. You can keep believing despite no evidence for your hypothesis and a great deal of evidence against it.
Sooooooo, about that change that ISN'T over time...
I agree!
That, however, is a different question! The only point with which I disagree is when you tell them that they have to prove that God doesn't exist. They do not have to prove that.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
It ought to be strengthening for us to logically conclude that you can't prove God doesn't exist.
But this doesn't prove that He does exist, just because you can't prove that He does not exist.
But you could prove that the Resurrection of Christ was a fictional event instead of a nonfiction historical fact: But that has never happened; and it's not because you can't prove that the Resurrection was a hoax; you can----and nobody's ever done it, not even Dr. Richard Carrier, who if anybody would love to disprove the Resurrection it would be him, and he has the resources to do it if it could be done, and it can't.
And that doesn't prove the Resurrection is real either, but it is not like how not being able to prove there is no God, doesn't prove that God is therefore real. That, is just logically impossible. But it is logically possible to prove the Resurrection was fictional; it has 'just' never been done.
[BEGGING THE QUESTION]Because it really happened.[/BEGGING THE QUESTION]
That's the racist change. The change that only conspiracy theorists believe in.Sooooooo, about that change that ISN'T over time...
They cannot prove evolution is real any more than they can prove God is real.
From abiogenesis; the first and most basic single cells of life would need the most random input. Designing a mechanical skeletal system from scratch comes to mind.
musterion
Well-known member
That's one of those questions that answers itself.
All the best questions are like that.
It might be good for our morale but then again, they can't prove that striped flamingos don't exist, either.
Precisely!
And so where is the profit in telling them to prove that God doesn't exist?
How is not the same?
If failing to disprove that the resurrection happened isn't proof that it did happen then how is a similar failure to disprove the existence of God not also not proof that He does exist? (I couldn't figure out a way to ask that question without using double negatives!)
The answer, of course, is that it is precisely the same. Failing to disprove God's existence is not proof of His existence. At best, it could be counted as evidence but certainly not proof.
Last edited:
So what? That's no surprise, right? You can't prove the false to be true.
Did you mean to say, "...any more than they can prove God IS NOT real."?
If not then, why would they be concerned about not being able to prove that God IS real?
I guess I just don't get the point you're making here.
The point is that anyone who claims God cannot be considered a force in science because He cannot be proven must also concede that evolution, natural selection, the big bang, and old ages of millions of years or more also cannot be considered science because they cannot be proven either.