Evolution, Darwinism, Common Descent

Discussion in 'Religious Discussions' started by ampaterry, Jan 13, 2018.

  1. ampaterry

    ampaterry *TFF Admin Staff Chaplain* Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2008
    Messages:
    9,832
    Location:
    West Tennessee
    The main difference between the pro-evolution and the anti-evolution viewpoints here is a simple bait-and-switch which the proponents of Darwinism pulled on us.

    Begin with this FACT: Evolution means, very simply, change over time.
    Living things change from generation to generation - that is an absolutely indisputable fact, one that is very familiar to every rancher, farmer, tropical fish breeder, dog or cat breeder, horse breeder, etc. ALL utilize, and depend on, evolution in it's TRUE meaning.
    The bait and switch comes about when they claim the FACT of evolution, as stated above, then switch to what should be called Common Descent, but they call it 'evolution' instead.
    That is how they claim that Evolution is a proven fact; in it's true meaning, it IS a proven fact.
    The various theories of the origin of species are THEORIES, they are NOT 'evolution' proper, but merely extrapolations from the FACT of evolution into various theories of origins.
    Evolution, in its REAL definition, is a proven fact.
    The belief that all life on the planet, both extant and extinct, came from original single celled organisms is complete balderdash, based on nothing but the NEED for an atheist to explain how we got here.
     
  2. ampaterry

    ampaterry *TFF Admin Staff Chaplain* Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2008
    Messages:
    9,832
    Location:
    West Tennessee
    The Common Descent folks, the Darwinians, believe that the FACT of evolution has no limits.
    The foolishness of this is obvious;
    For instance, every few years a faster horse is bred, and breaks track records.
    In the last decade, milk production per cow has gone up 14 percent due to selective breeding - a kind of guided evolution.
    But no dobbin will ever break the sound barrier, nor will any cow produce a half ton of milk per day.
    True evolution DOES have limits.
    You can get tons of different dogs, and lots of different cats, by selective breeding.
    I have bred guppies with longer fins and different colors, by selective breeding.
    But no amount of time will allow a dog to become a cat, nor a fish become a frog.
     

  3. Kvasir

    Kvasir Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    224
    Location:
    Northern Illinois
    As I see it, "change over time" is simply statistical averages. I have never been presented with any solid evidence that any organism developed, or "evolved" traits that did not already exist in any given population.
    A breeder can intentionally select only thick furred sheep for his flock easy enough. But no amount of selective breeding will produce a six legged cat.
    That is the major stumbling block of evolution. They have no method of adding new traits, and without it their entire theory crumbles.
     
  4. carver

    carver Moderator Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Messages:
    30,532
    Location:
    DAV, Deep in the Pineywoods of E. Texas!
    According to scientists, chimps and bonobos in particular take pride of place as our nearest living relatives, sharing approximately 98.8 percent of our DNA. If human and chimp DNA is 98.8 percent the same, why are we so different? Numbers tell part of the story. Each human cell contains roughly three billion base pairs, or bits of information. Just 1.2 percent of that equals about 35 million differences. And that little 1.2% is so huge you wouldn't believe it.
     
    drymag, Kvasir, BlackEagle and 3 others like this.
  5. ampaterry

    ampaterry *TFF Admin Staff Chaplain* Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2008
    Messages:
    9,832
    Location:
    West Tennessee
    Exactly correct. LOTS of evidence of LOSING organs or systems that are not used for a long time (Blind cave fish, for example), but NO evidence - nor mechanism - for developing NEW ones. The mutation idea dies a quick death when it is shown that THOUSANDS of mutations, standing one on another, are needed to develope one organ - yet there has NEVER been a single example of a mutation that was other than either neutral or detrimental to the parent organism!
     
    carver, drymag, Kvasir and 1 other person like this.
  6. One Shot

    One Shot Well-Known Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2010
    Messages:
    4,197
    Location:
    Colorado
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2018
  7. ampaterry

    ampaterry *TFF Admin Staff Chaplain* Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2008
    Messages:
    9,832
    Location:
    West Tennessee
    Ken Ham does a lot of good things!!
     
  8. One Shot

    One Shot Well-Known Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2010
    Messages:
    4,197
    Location:
    Colorado
    I know. That's why the left hates him and tries to discredit his work.
     
    drymag, ampaterry and carver like this.
  9. TigerLeo

    TigerLeo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2016
    Messages:
    3,357
    Location:
    SouthEast Missouri
    Change over time (or micro-evolution) is not only real, but obviously evident, however the common descent, is ludicrous at best, and down right misleading. To say that I evolved from a monkey... The real question is, what makes people believe that monkeys remain unchanged?
     
  10. BlackEagle

    BlackEagle Well-Known Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2011
    Messages:
    11,482
    Location:
    UK
    Somehow I keep thinking of this...
    Ben Carson vs Athiest.jpg
     
    ms6852, carver, drymag and 5 others like this.
  11. BlackEagle

    BlackEagle Well-Known Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2011
    Messages:
    11,482
    Location:
    UK
    The implications of Darwinism/Evolution bear thinking about.

    It led Mary Sanger's thinking as she decided abortion was the best way to eliminate inferior races, less intelligent people, and genetic diseases. One of her primary aims was to eliminate blacks. Hitler decided it was a good thing to eliminate inferior, undesireable Jews.

    Evolution says humans are descendended from animals. That makes man no different than other animals. That opens a whole can of worms. Animals have rights just as humans do. Animal rights, if they are endangered species, trump human rights.

    If one kind of animal becomes too numerous, people start culling them. So some kinds of people will get set up for culling. If an animal gets too old or decrepit, the merciful thing is euthanasia.
    So now with the population shifting to predominately old age, (because one generation has aborted its babies) the logical thing to do is kill off the undesireable old age people because they are a drain on society.

    That's a start. As you think about it, and look at the way evolutionists think, you can add to the list.

    God created man separately from the animals, using a different process entirely. He spoke and the animals came into existance; He created man from the dust of the earth and breathed into him the breath of life. He created man with a soul, capable of communicating with God, capable of having a relationship with God. Animals did not get this breath of life or the capability of having a relationship with God. That's what sets man apart from animals.
     
  12. ampaterry

    ampaterry *TFF Admin Staff Chaplain* Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2008
    Messages:
    9,832
    Location:
    West Tennessee
    Francis Galton, Darwin's cousin, took Darwin's theory to it's logical conclusion; If the superiority of mankind is the result of the superior surviving while inferior die off, then man's evolution ended when he got civilized enough to keep the weak and inferior specimens from dying off. The solution, according to him, is to prevent inferior specimens from reproducing. He called this idea Eugenics, and Margaret Sanger was a devotee. So was Hitler. The Eugenics movement was strong in many countries, INCLUDING the USA. At the conclusion of WWII, when the absolute horrors of Hitlers solution came to light, the Eugenics movement died - but it died in name only; Sanger continued the SAME work, under the name of Planned Parenthood; birth control for the inferior races, and low income people in general. It is AMAZING to me that so many people still want to support this organization in light of it's REAL purpose! And even MORE amazing now that they have started SELLING parts of the aborted babies!!
     
    ms6852, ral357, carver and 4 others like this.
  13. Kevin New Mexico

    Kevin New Mexico Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2018
    Messages:
    56
  14. Bigdog57

    Bigdog57 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,399
    Location:
    North Florida
    The disinformation in this thread is truly staggering.
     
  15. Alaska444

    Alaska444 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2013
    Messages:
    2,683
    Precisely what disinformation is it you are concerned about?
     
    ms6852, ampaterry, BlackEagle and 3 others like this.