Should at Least Make Evolutionists Consider

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Why, and how, does the muntjac deer have only seven pairs of chromosomes?

Please don't look this up, at least until you've considered for a moment how weird this is. Imagine you have 20 pairs of chromosomes, and you have a baby that has sixteen pairs. He shouldn't be able to breed with the rest of your species.

Is this at least weird? A regular deer has around 40-70 chromosomes. Is it at least strange that he can even be alive having lost that much genetic information? One more halving and he'll be a fruit fly (they have 4 pairs).

[marke]

Two major errors there:
1. God says that the Earth brought forth living things. Why not just believe Him? Science merely confirms what Christians have always known.

2. Evolutionary theory makes no claims about how life began. If God had magically poofed living things into existence, evolution would still work as we see it working today.

Marke: Those humans who believe in evolution are of necessity clueless as to how life began on earth.

You have some major misconceptions about the Bible and about science. That's curable, you know. Why not do some catching up and then come back and join the discussion?

Mothers bring forth children but mothers do not give children life, that comes only from God.

As God tells you, He created living things by having the nature He created, bring them forth. Why not just accept it His way?

Marke: God told us how He created Eve, but it was not by evolution.

Evolution is as dumb as a bag of rocks when it comes to explaining how the extremely complicated process was supposed to have begun.

Pretty much like gravitational theory is as dumb as a bag of rocks when it comes to explaining how the extremely complicated process was supposed to have begun. As you learned, evolutionary theory isn't about the way life began. The theory assumes that life began, and describes how it changes over time.

Marke: Evolution has no clue where life came from or how DNA began.

When and how was DNA created?

God says it came from nature, as He intended.

By stupid freakish accident?

That's kind of disrespectful to God. But of course, God can use contingency just as surely as He can use contingency to do His will.
Marke: Christians don't disrespect God by promoting foolish false narratives about how the universe supposedly accidentally and miraculously banged itself into existence from nothing with no help from God.

Of course evolutionists must take a system already created by God in order to assume natural selection took it stupidly and accidentally from there.

Darwin's great discovery was that it wasn't by chance. This goes back to your problems understanding science and scripture. Do some reading and you'll do better here.

Marke: Darwin never proved whether or not the universe was created by chance.

[The Barbarian]

Marke: Those humans who believe in evolution are of necessity clueless as to how life began on earth.

I believe God, Who says that the earth brought forth living things. You should believe Him, too.

God told us how He created Eve, but it was not by evolution.

Most Christians acknowledge that this is an allegory for the nature of marriage, but even if God magically created Eve (magically changing on X chromosome to a Y chromosome in the process), evolution would still work exactly as we see it working today.

Evolution is as dumb as a bag of rocks when it comes to explaining how the extremely complicated process was supposed to have begun.

Pretty much like gravitational theory is as dumb as a bag of rocks when it comes to explaining how the extremely complicated process was supposed to have begun. As you learned, evolutionary theory isn't about the way life began. The theory assumes that life began, and describes how it changes over time.

Marke: Evolution has no clue where life came from or how DNA began.

But science does. Evolution, as you just learned is only about the way existing living populations change. But chemists and biochemists are finding more and more evidence that God was right when He said the earth produced living things.

When and how was DNA created?

God says it came from nature, as He intended.

By stupid freakish accident?

That's kind of disrespectful to God. But of course, God can use contingency just as surely as He can use contingency to do His will.

Marke: Christians don't disrespect God by promoting foolish false narratives about how the universe supposedly accidentally and miraculously banged itself into existence from nothing with no help from God.

Nor do scientists. But you shouldn't characterize God's creation as a "stupid freakish accident."

Of course evolutionists must take a system already created by God in order to assume natural selection took it stupidly and accidentally from there.

Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random. Again, you keep running into walls because you don't know much of anything about the issue.

Marke: Darwin never proved whether or not the universe was created by chance.

He merely explained how evolution works. Which is what his theory is about. In science, theories are only responsible for claims made by them.

[marke]

Marke: Those humans who believe in evolution are of necessity clueless as to how life began on earth.

I believe God, Who says that the earth brought forth living things. You should believe Him, too.

God told us how He created Eve, but it was not by evolution.

Most Christians acknowledge that this is an allegory for the nature of marriage, but even if God magically created Eve (magically changing on X chromosome to a Y chromosome in the process), evolution would still work exactly as we see it working today.

Marke: Atheists refuse to believe God created Eve the way He described in His Word, but they eagerly believe in the unsupported miracle of spontaneous generation and unexplainable miracle of the godless invention of DNA.

Evolution is as dumb as a bag of rocks when it comes to explaining how the extremely complicated process was supposed to have begun.

Pretty much like gravitational theory is as dumb as a bag of rocks when it comes to explaining how the extremely complicated process was supposed to have begun. As you learned, evolutionary theory isn't about the way life began. The theory assumes that life began, and describes how it changes over time.

Marke: Evolution has no clue where life came from or how DNA began.

But science does. Evolution, as you just learned is only about the way existing living populations change. But chemists and biochemists are finding more and more evidence that God was right when He said the earth produced living things.

When and how was DNA created?

God says it came from nature, as He intended.

Marke: God did not say He used uncaused accidental spontaneous natural events to create the genome.

By stupid freakish accident?

That's kind of disrespectful to God. But of course, God can use contingency just as surely as He can use contingency to do His will.

Marke: Christians don't disrespect God by promoting foolish false narratives about how the universe supposedly accidentally and miraculously banged itself into existence from nothing with no help from God.

Nor do scientists. But you shouldn't characterize God's creation as a "stupid freakish accident."

Of course evolutionists must take a system already created by God in order to assume natural selection took it stupidly and accidentally from there.

Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random. Again, you keep running into walls because you don't know much of anything about the issue.

Marke: Darwin never proved whether or not the universe was created by chance.

He merely explained how evolution works. Which is what his theory is about. In science, theories are only responsible for claims made by them.

Marke: Did Darwin explain how evolution works? What did he say about mutatants being sterile? What did he explain about intelligence being added to the genome over time with no apparent explanation or source? What did he say about creatures changing their chromosome count and genetic makeup in order to change into a different creature according to some supposed 'natural selection' plan of some sort?

Darwin had no answer and his theories were not scientific facts but very poor assumptions and theories.

[The Barbarian]

Did Darwin explain how evolution works?

Yes. Hence his discovery that it isn't random. The four points of his theory remain solidly confirmed even today.

What did he say about mutatants being sterile?

He pointed out that harmful variation tends to be removed from the population, while useful ones tend to be retained and increase in the population.

What did he explain about intelligence being added to the genome over time with no apparent explanation or source?

Variation and natural selection can increase intelligence, so long as the environment favors such a change.

What did he say about creatures changing their chromosome count and genetic makeup in order to change into a different creature according to some supposed 'natural selection' plan of some sort?

Darwin didn't know about genes. It turns out, that the discovery of genetics cleared up a major objection to his theory, showing how a single favorable variation in a population could persist and increase.

Darwin had no answer

For everything but genetics, his theory explained these things. And the rediscovery of Mendel's work resulted in general acceptance of his theory.

and his theories were not scientific facts

Theories are not facts. They are predictions based on facts. As you know, all four of his points have been repeatedly confirmed by facts.

[marke]

Did Darwin explain how evolution works?

Yes. Hence his discovery that it isn't random. The four points of his theory remain solidly confirmed even today.

Marke: Darwin had some theories, speculations, assumptions and the like but he was far from perfect and many of his ideas were far from accurate or scientific.

What did he say about mutatants being sterile?

He pointed out that harmful variation tends to be removed from the population, while useful ones tend to be retained and increase in the population.

Marke: I don't think Darwin knew that mutants were sterile or that he understood much of anything about genetics.

What did he explain about intelligence being added to the genome over time with no apparent explanation or source?

Variation and natural selection can increase intelligence, so long as the environment favors such a change.

Marke: Nobody has proven that intelligence was added to the genome at some point or that more intelligence continues to be added as time progresses.

What did he say about creatures changing their chromosome count and genetic makeup in order to change into a different creature according to some supposed 'natural selection' plan of some sort?

Darwin didn't know about genes. It turns out, that the discovery of genetics cleared up a major objection to his theory, showing how a single favorable variation in a population could persist and increase.

Marke: Darwin was ignorant about many things which led him to form some false speculations about genetic changes in species.

Darwin had no answer

For everything but genetics, his theory explained these things. And the rediscovery of Mendel's work resulted in general acceptance of his theory.

Marke: Darwin proposed theories he could not prove and which have still not been proved.

and his theories were not scientific facts

Theories are not facts. They are predictions based on facts. As you know, all four of his points have been repeatedly confirmed by facts.

Marke: There are aspects of Dasrwin's theories that seem at first glance to be supported by examples in nature, but which upon closer examination prove to be erroneous.

[The Barbarian]

Did Darwin explain how evolution works?

Yes. Hence his discovery that it isn't random. The four points of his theory remain solidly confirmed even today.

Darwin had some theories, speculations, assumptions and the like but he was far from perfect and many of his ideas were far from accurate or scientific.

His theory remains as solid today as ever. As you know, his four points are being continuously confirmed by research. And nothing has overturned any of it.

What did he say about mutatants being sterile?

He pointed out that harmful variation tends to be removed from the population, while useful ones tend to be retained and increase in the population.

I don't think Darwin knew that mutants were sterile

He knew that most variation does not result in sterility, something animal and plant breeders had known long before Darwin.

What did he explain about intelligence being added to the genome over time with no apparent explanation or source?

Variation and natural selection can increase intelligence, so long as the environment favors such a change. He noted that human societies would favor variations that would increase intelligence for example.

Nobody has proven that intelligence was added to the genome at some point

There never was a gene for intelligence per se. So there was never a point were humans were unintelligent and then suddenly intelligent.

or that more intelligence continues to be added as time progresses.

Actually, there's good evidence that Ashkenazi Jews lived in conditions that strongly favored increased intelligence. Some alleles specific to their group have been found to be associated with higher intelligence. So you have that wrong, too.

What did he say about creatures changing their chromosome count and genetic makeup in order to change into a different creature according to some supposed 'natural selection' plan of some sort?

Darwin didn't know about genes. It turns out, that the discovery of genetics cleared up a major objection to his theory, showing how a single favorable variation in a population could persist and increase.

Darwin was ignorant about many things which led him to form some false speculations about genetic changes in species.

For everything but genetics, his theory explained these things. And the rediscovery of Mendel's work resulted in general acceptance of his theory because genetics removed a serious objection against his theory.

Darwin proposed theories he could not prove and which have still not been proved.

All four points of his theory have been repeatedly verified by evidence. Would you like to see some examples? There are many, many examples. Want to see some of them?

and his theories were not scientific facts

Theories are not facts. They are predictions based on facts. As you know, all four of his points have been repeatedly confirmed by facts.

There are aspects of Dasrwin's theories that seem at first glance to be supported by examples in nature, but which upon closer examination prove to be erroneous.[/b]

But you can't name any? We all know why.

[marke]

Darwin never proved black African pygmies were some of the earliest evidence of evolution evolution.

[Clownboat]

Darwin never proved black African pygmies were some of the earliest evidence of evolution evolution.

It is vile to pretend to be that which you are not, only to play dumb (failing to understand provided definitions and still pretending to fail to not understand the quote function here) in an attempt to vilify a group of people.
Admit it Marke... you are an atheist posing as an ignorant Christian in order to make Christians look bad. Where did the Christian hurt you? Disingenuous/fake posters do not belong here and only sully debate.

From one unbeliever calling out another. Shame on you, the gig is up.

[Jose Fly]

Darwin never proved black African pygmies were some of the earliest evidence of evolution evolution.

It is vile to pretend to be that which you are not, only to play dumb (failing to understand provided definitions and still pretending to fail to not understand the quote function here) in an attempt to vilify a group of people.
Admit it Marke... you are an atheist posing as an ignorant Christian in order to make Christians look bad. Where did the Christian hurt you? Disingenuous/fake posters do not belong here and only sully debate.

From one unbeliever calling out another. Shame on you, the gig is up.

I've seen Marke in other Christian message boards for years, so unless someone is spoofing him specifically, I think that's legitimately him.

IMO what you're seeing is the result of something I've been saying for years now....it's impossible to advocate for creationism in an honest manner. Believing in creationism is one thing, but to actually go out and advocate for it requires so much denial of reality that it's just not possible to do so honestly.

[marke]

Darwin never proved black African pygmies were some of the earliest evidence of evolution evolution.

It is vile to pretend to be that which you are not, only to play dumb (failing to understand provided definitions and still pretending to fail to not understand the quote function here) in an attempt to vilify a group of people.
Admit it Marke... you are an atheist posing as an ignorant Christian in order to make Christians look bad. Where did the Christian hurt you? Disingenuous/fake posters do not belong here and only sully debate.

From one unbeliever calling out another. Shame on you, the gig is up.

Marke: You misjudge me.