Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
So many did believe it until just recently.
Click to expand...
The Church Father’s were so dumb that they didn’t know humans don’t live to 900+ years. This is why they never questioned it. But modern theologians are very smart - they know humans don’t live to 900+ years, and so they question what the Bible says.
 
Edgar said:
If evidence of such tooth-wear can’t be found, this could mean the “genetic health” of those who lived for up to 1000 years was such that their teeth didn’t wear down.
Click to expand...
Fine. We have DNA sequences going that far back as well. You can look at those sequences and show us where their “genetic health” is better than ours is now. The potential evidence is there. Why have you not looked at it?

rossum
 
Edgar said:
But modern theologians are very smart - they know humans don’t live to 900+ years, and so they question what the Bible says.
Click to expand...
They question various interpretations of the Bible. For example, the Bible used to be interpreted to say that witches should be killed. Since about 1700 that interpretation has been rejected, despite the words of the Bible not changing. The words have stayed the same; the interpretation has changed.

rossum
 
Q. Why is nature orderly rather than chaotic?
A. Duh, I dunno, could it be there is a Designer and a Sustainer of the design?
A. Yes.
 
Edgar said:
40.png
Bradskii:
If you have read any Hans Christian Anderson’s tales then you will know that they are stories with a message. They go into a lot of detail which keeps one’s attention through to the end and the imagery it conjures up helps to carry the messages. Messages about life. About morality. About doing the right thing.
Click to expand...
You forgot to mention one little difference: No one claims Anderson’s tales are factual - in contrast, billions of people believe the Bible contains literal history.
Click to expand...
Hey, you just asked why would the facts be so detailed if it wasn’t true. You have been given a good reason. It’s churlish to then say ‘Well, that’s nonsense because it’s true anyway’.

If you don’t want answers you don’t like, then don’t ask any questions.
 
Bradskii said:
Hey, you just asked why would the facts be so detailed if it wasn’t true.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that the Epic of Gilgamesh is also true, with details of a second Ark in a different shape with different dimensions, so it cannot have been the same Ark as the one Noah built?

J K Rowling gives some very detailed descriptions of Hogwarts? Does that make those descriptions true? Sometimes storytellers add detail to their stories.

rossum
 
Hope1960 said:
40.png
Aloysium:
I have no side. I have my opinion. Which side are you on?
Click to expand...
Until I learn something reasonable, I’lol continue to believe of evolution, I suppose.
Click to expand...
You had said:
Hope1960 said:
So, your answer is that you can’t prove your side, either. Anyone else?
Click to expand...
As I said, I am here voicing my opinions and listening to those of others. As far as I know, I wasn’t put in this world to convince you about anything. But, my inability to do so has to do with at least three factors:
  • the validity of my position
  • my ability to express it
  • your capacity to understand or the standards you use to determine proof
Knowledge is a grace of the Holy Spirit, so it is best to pray for understanding when one has questions as you do.

I’m interested, why use the word “side”? If you see me as being on one side, who’s side are you on? One way to sort it out is to observe who agrees with one’s views. Unfortunately, we know people through what they do, and we really don’t know anyone here.
 
Last edited:
I can see several generations of first humans living longer. After awhile I imagine that our genetics has been corrupted and will need tweaking to unlock its full potential.
 
You don’t have to “imagine”. You can look at the DNA sequences of ancient humans. We have the sequence from Ötzi the Ice Man, dating back over 5,000 years.

If there is evidence to support your position, then that is where you will find it. Absent the evidence, all you have is imagination, as you say.

rossum
 
Let’s take the first hit on a Google search:

Loading…

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The Abstract concludes:
the lack of conservation and increased rate of gene expression divergence are caused by a reduction in the effectiveness of natural selection against deleterious mutations because of the low effective population sizes of hominids. This has resulted in the accumulation of a large number of deleterious mutations in sequences containing gene control elements and hence a widespread degradation of the genome during the evolution of humans and chimpanzees.
Click to expand...
Sexual reproduction assists in mitigating the consequences of random mutations caused by physical factors, such as viruses, toxins and radiation. There also exists, as part of the normal functioning of the cell, built-in DNA healing mechanisms, as well as epigenetic processes that assist in adaptation by the organism and its offspring to new environments; these can also be disrupted by random mutaions. What happens in small populations is that, because of a diminished reservoir of healthy DNA, deleterious mutations accumulate.

The introduction of th article bgins with the statement:
Functionally important sequences are expected to evolve more slowly than neutrally evolving sequences. This is because long periods of selection for functional efficiency lead to sequences in which most advantageous mutations have already become fixed. The majority of new mutations in a sequence are then deleterious, because they perturb the highly adapted state.
Click to expand...
and ends with:
Unexpectedly, we find that selective constraints are essentially absent in hominids in regions upstream of genes and in first introns, in contrast to murids, in which these regions are subject to moderate levels of constraint.
Click to expand...
Expecting the knee-jerk reply that the article proves evolution because the term is used everywhere, let’s be reminded that the above are interpretations of the data. Just because someone interprets the sun, moon and stars as rising in the east and setting in the west, does not mean that the earth is still and the heavens revolve around it. I’m going to assert that the data itself:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

is better explained by a creationist model. This may be considered pseudoscience, as likewise should be evolution.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top