According to science, how does a new species develop?

[sealybobo]

What are examples of new species?

Chawawa, beagles, pit bulls, Doberman, shitsu, Datsun all came from wolves

 

[james bond]

You got it completely wrong. Suffering is the result sin. God did not create sin. He did not create evil. They are the result of human agents. Adam and Eve sinned. No one made them do it. They did it on their own. They are responsible for their actions, and the rest of us suffer because of it. And God IS all powerful. One day, he will take death and sin and throw them into the lake of fire, along with all those who have rejected Him.

Even if I concede that God didn't create suffering and evil, which I don't, he allows it when according to you he has the power to prevent it.

Furthermore, you still haven't even attempted to get around the fact that God created Smallpox, Polio, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, and volcanoes.

If he's "all powerful," then why doesn't he end death and sin right now? What's he waiting for, so millions more can die and suffer horribly?

Why should He? They are the result of sin. It's our fault those things exist because Adam sinned. But this life is just a way-station to our final destination. Which destination you arrive at is entirely up to you. Jesus died to save you. You can sit there and complain, or you can accept the free gift of Salvation. Your choice.

How is it my fault if Adam did the sinning? Do you believe in collective responsibility like the Nazis did?

We can address Jesus later. Right now you need to explain why God allows endless suffering and death of even innocent children.

Think of it this way. You cannot get good fruit from a bad tree. It's the same thing. Adam sinned, and his sinful nature was passed on to everyone who ever lived. It is a spiritual condition. It's not because of what we've done, but what we are. Also, God cursed all of Creation after Adam sinned. Adam is the reason that sin and suffering came into the world. You ask why God hasn't done anything about it. It's because it is not the right time. He will act to correct all wrongs, but He will do it according to His time table. Meanwhile, He sent His only Son so that we might have life. This short physical existence is nothing. Set your eyes on eternity and the condition of your own soul. That's what really matters.

If Adam passed on his sin to all his descendents, it's because that's the way God made him. God is still responsible. You can't get God off the hook for the existence of evil and suffering in the world since he is all powerrull and could have prevented it. If you claim he couldn't have prevented it, then you're admitting that he isn't all powerful, and therefor he isn't God.

How is it not the right time for God to stop evil? If God is all powerfull, he can do this very moment with a mere thought. What's stopping him? If you are a Christian, there's no denying that there is evil in the universe it's because God allows it.

Trying to excuse the evil God allows by saying human life isn't important is simply condoning the existence of evil.

God made Adam by giving him free will. Before that, he gave the angels free will, too, and got Satan. Despite this, he didn't want human robots to do his bidding so he gave Adam and Eve free will. The way I see it, God set up a negative test for Adam and Eve. Afterward, he set up a positive test for obeying God, John 3:16. Due to free will, many do not believe John 3:16 even though they are aware of it. Instead of what you propose, what God has done is put Jesus before each and every individual according to the Bible.

 

[james bond]

That's a horrible analogy. Even biology isn't like the Star Trek transporter at all, so you're wrong. The biology states that living organisms were formed from the tree of life. All living organisms have a history, changed over time and different species share common ancestors. There is no need for creation because it is assumed that some bacteria or single-cell organism appeared billions of years ago due to some energy transformation.

On the creation science side, humans were created from God as adult creatures. All living organisms were created that way except for Baby Jesus. Creation scientists say that it is impossible for a single-cell organism to form from non-living materials. This is because the building block of protein can only be created within another living cell and the right amino acids are needed. The formation of protein doesn't happen in nature or outer space. Else we would see the origins of biological evolution happen and one does not need millions of years to do so.

Which is more believable based on the evidence? It's the creation theory since the building block of protein can only occur within a cell. If the evolution origins theory were true, then we would see more living organisms such as microbes or bacteria in other parts of our solar system.

so a fully formed, complex man with millions of cells being produced all at once, is more believable than a single cell being produced??
is this what you saying???

If a cell cannot be created, just like an atom can't be created , then you have to look at what other theories of origins are out there. (BTW molecules can be put together to create something, but not atoms. We can create synthetic diamonds, but not gold. This is as God designed. He put limitations. A man's got to know his limitations as Dirty Harry said.) If it's not based on evolutionary thinking, then it's creation. The arguments have come down to basically these two. Actually, there is a third option where one can choose to ignore the fine tuning facts or laws, as it only applied during expansion, but then they would run into other problems such as fine tuning in biology down the road. Read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy link below.

Here is evidence of what I am talking about. We have sent probes to every planet and now have boiled it down to two in regards to possibility of life bearing and being able to support life if we choose to colonize there. One is Mars which has been studied in-depth and not one microbe has been found. The remaining planet is Europa which is a moon of Jupiter and not a planet. Mars is still highly questionable in regards to supporting life because not enough water has been found. What's there is frozen and scientists think there was water there in the past. That said, if there was water there in the past, then we would find some evidence of past life. Europa still has a chance because studies have shown vast oceans of water within the planet.

What is happening today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper before he died which I will relate to fine tuning below. I mention him because he is the person whom I read to learn of the Big Bang Theory. When these atheist scientists were investigating what happened immediately after the expansion, i.e. big bang, they discovered fine tuning parameters that if they were minutely off, then the universe would have collapsed onto itself. If the speed of expansion was too fast, then gravity would not have been able to pull the planets, moons and stars together . Look up John Leslie and fine tuning for an evolutionist view of fine tuning. There are too many parameters to discuss in this short space, so I post links to two web pages, one creation science and the other neutral philosophy that give detailed explanation. The creation science link discusses the parameters and shows how great the chances are of life happening as the universe and earth formed. This is why Stephen Hawking asked, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" The other link discusses the competing theories. One even asks if a response is necessary. It seems to state, "It is what it is."

The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning

Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

What we learn today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper two weeks before he died. In it he discusses why there are multiverses. It's tries to explain how multiverses could form as other scientists have done like Guth, Linde, Weinberg and others. Why multiverses are important is because it is atheist science's or evolutionary thinking's hypothesis to counter the fine tuning of an intelligent designer and support the anthropic principle. One name for it is the eternal chaotic inflation hypothesis. Creation science thinks fine tuning is evidence for God and creation.

Article and link to his paper from Cornell is within.
Read Stephen Hawking's Final Paper On How To Find Parallel Universes, Submitted Just Two Weeks Before He Died

Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean

if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??

That's just idiotic. Evolution can't readily explain how an asexual single-cell turned into a sexual one.

I just saw it explained. Just YouTube it. There are over 100 dwarf planets in our outer solar system. Bet the ones with water and active cores and organic material all have life in their oceans.

If they discover life in Serius or titan or on Pluto what will you say then?

What is your hypothesis?

Which ones are these dwarf planets? Can we get there, i.e. send a probe there? So far, we've sent probes to every planet in our solar system. None has life, but evos still hold out hope for Mars (life existed there previously), Europa (moon of Jupiter) and Titan (moon of Saturn). My evo website has admitted that life outside of earth is rare, but didn't give a reason. The reasons life is rare are based ons fine tuning facts or parameters (evolutionary thinking) and God didn't create aliens (creation science thinking).

 

[james bond]

The horshoe crab is evidence for creation. There are many living fossils that evolutionists thought died millions of years ago, but nothing of the sort. They are still alive today and have not changed, i.e. no evolution.

That isn't proof of creationism. The fact that some animals haven't evolved much isn't a violation of the principles of natural selection. If they have a good design that allows them to thrive, then why should they evolve??

You are implying that there is a choice of whether or not something evolves. Since the whole evolution thingy is based on random mutations, those mutations would continue..

Mutations continue all of the time.

If you understood the basic theory of evolution, you would understand that most mutations do nothing, most of the remainder are harmful, and that mutations normally will only be passed on when they provide a competitive advantage to the creatures.

Why has the horseshoe crab stayed very similar for all of this time? Because it works well- but the bigger fallacy is the claim that the horseshoe crab of today is identical to that of millions of years ago- they are very similar- not identical.

I have to explain the horseshoe crab argument from creationists. It isn't a creationist argument in that the Bible refers to living fossils. It is an anti-evolution argument from creationists. In other words, anyone can make the argument, not just creationists. Before Darwin published Origin of Species, he and Georges Cuview were at odds as to why plants and animals went extinct. Cuvier, a creation scientist, thought it was due to the earth going through periods of extinction due to catastrophism such as volcanoes, earthquakes, floods and so on. OTOH, Darwin stated it was due to other plants and animals that were superior to the previous version and thus, it replaced it on the tree of life. Darwin was the one who coined the term "living fossils." The horseshoe crab is considered one of the many living fossils. Anti-evolutionists do not think living fossils are an oddity because they did not get replaced by evolution. They just went extinct due to catastrophism. This explains why the horseshoe crab remains alive and not have changed or evolved into a different species. OTOH those who believe in evolution are surprised when they find a living fossil such as the coealacanth and Wollemi pine tree. In this context, "because it works well" does not follow the ToE. Evolution is based on change over time and there are many "living fossils" that have not changed over time. Atheist scientists would have to change the ToE to explain imho.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah- I hear that from Anti-Evolutionists a lot.

Of course you cannot prove that evolution has stopped.

Because of course it hasn't. You just cherry pick some species that you haven't observed changing in your lifetimes and proclaim that evolution is dead.

I have cited an article three times in this thread detailing observed evolution.

You Christianists ignore it of course.

Not only do we not ignore science, we understand that the smarter scientists get, the closer to God they get. We knew that Christ was inter-dimensional long before Hawking figured that there were other dimensions. Einstein had to be introduced to God's space time, before he put it together, almost...
There is one of our notable scientists, that believes he has figured it out. We live in a matrix, and dimensions abound. Christ was in the sixth dimension when he appeared in the upper room. Did you know that?
Christians love science.

Where does the Bible mention dimensions?

Genesis, according to Maimonides. In the 1100's. What he gleaned scientifically from Genesis .

Hmmm how did he test that hypothesis 'scientifically'?

I do love it however, when Christianists resort to a Torah scholar to explain their believe in Creation....

Why wouldn't we refer to the Torah? Same God, different covenant.
How did Einstein test his? His math wouldn't gel. Then Hubble introduced him to space time. That helped the math, but still Einstein would apologize to his peers for it not being exactly right. Had he added the unseen dimensions, he would have been spot on in his calculations. We have since realized they are there.

And yes. Heaven is IN a different dimension. Hell is not.

There was an incident witnessed where Christ had a meeting with Moses and Elijah where the three levitated. You can't do that in our dimensions.

Einstein came up with the theory of relativity when Hubble was still an unknown.

 

[bripat9643]

What are examples of new species?

Every species which exists, really. Only one species was the most recent common ancestor of all species. So, at least (all the species - 1) species on the planet are new species, if not all.

What are examples of new species?

Every species which exists, really. Only one species was the most recent common ancestor of all species. So, at least (all the species - 1) species on the planet are new species, if not all.

Riiight.

What new species have developed in the past 400 years?

I know a few have gone extinct.

Give me an example of an observed new species and not pure crap, pls.

Antibiotic resistant bacteria.

 

[bripat9643]

Even if I concede that God didn't create suffering and evil, which I don't, he allows it when according to you he has the power to prevent it.

Furthermore, you still haven't even attempted to get around the fact that God created Smallpox, Polio, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, and volcanoes.

If he's "all powerful," then why doesn't he end death and sin right now? What's he waiting for, so millions more can die and suffer horribly?

Why should He? They are the result of sin. It's our fault those things exist because Adam sinned. But this life is just a way-station to our final destination. Which destination you arrive at is entirely up to you. Jesus died to save you. You can sit there and complain, or you can accept the free gift of Salvation. Your choice.

How is it my fault if Adam did the sinning? Do you believe in collective responsibility like the Nazis did?

We can address Jesus later. Right now you need to explain why God allows endless suffering and death of even innocent children.

Think of it this way. You cannot get good fruit from a bad tree. It's the same thing. Adam sinned, and his sinful nature was passed on to everyone who ever lived. It is a spiritual condition. It's not because of what we've done, but what we are. Also, God cursed all of Creation after Adam sinned. Adam is the reason that sin and suffering came into the world. You ask why God hasn't done anything about it. It's because it is not the right time. He will act to correct all wrongs, but He will do it according to His time table. Meanwhile, He sent His only Son so that we might have life. This short physical existence is nothing. Set your eyes on eternity and the condition of your own soul. That's what really matters.

If Adam passed on his sin to all his descendents, it's because that's the way God made him. God is still responsible. You can't get God off the hook for the existence of evil and suffering in the world since he is all powerrull and could have prevented it. If you claim he couldn't have prevented it, then you're admitting that he isn't all powerful, and therefor he isn't God.

How is it not the right time for God to stop evil? If God is all powerfull, he can do this very moment with a mere thought. What's stopping him? If you are a Christian, there's no denying that there is evil in the universe it's because God allows it.

Trying to excuse the evil God allows by saying human life isn't important is simply condoning the existence of evil.

God made Adam by giving him free will. Before that, he gave the angels free will, too, and got Satan. Despite this, he didn't want human robots to do his bidding so he gave Adam and Eve free will. The way I see it, God set up a negative test for Adam and Eve. Afterward, he set up a positive test for obeying God, John 3:16. Due to free will, many do not believe John 3:16 even though they are aware of it. Instead of what you propose, what God has done is put Jesus before each and every individual according to the Bible.

If God is perfect, then why does he need to test the creatures he created? Aren't they supposed to be perfect? If they aren't perfect, then how can you claim God is perfect? It appears God deliberately created them with flaws so he could torture them forever when those flaws expressed themselves. God's punishment for being flawed is extraordinarlly cruel and vindictive. Casting a baby into the lake of fire for eternity because he wasn't babtized couldn't possibly be any crueler.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Not only do we not ignore science, we understand that the smarter scientists get, the closer to God they get. We knew that Christ was inter-dimensional long before Hawking figured that there were other dimensions. Einstein had to be introduced to God's space time, before he put it together, almost...
There is one of our notable scientists, that believes he has figured it out. We live in a matrix, and dimensions abound. Christ was in the sixth dimension when he appeared in the upper room. Did you know that?
Christians love science.

Where does the Bible mention dimensions?

Genesis, according to Maimonides. In the 1100's. What he gleaned scientifically from Genesis .

Hmmm how did he test that hypothesis 'scientifically'?

I do love it however, when Christianists resort to a Torah scholar to explain their believe in Creation....

Why wouldn't we refer to the Torah? Same God, different covenant.
How did Einstein test his? His math wouldn't gel. Then Hubble introduced him to space time. That helped the math, but still Einstein would apologize to his peers for it not being exactly right. Had he added the unseen dimensions, he would have been spot on in his calculations. We have since realized they are there.

And yes. Heaven is IN a different dimension. Hell is not.

There was an incident witnessed where Christ had a meeting with Moses and Elijah where the three levitated. You can't do that in our dimensions.

Einstein came up with the theory of relativity when Hubble was still an unknown.

Einstein came up with the theory of relativity after Hubble showed Einstein that the universe was not constant, but expanding. That fact shot Einstein's theory of a constant cosmos to hell. He discarded it and embraced the theory of relativity with his new found knowledge.

 

[james bond]

Why should He? They are the result of sin. It's our fault those things exist because Adam sinned. But this life is just a way-station to our final destination. Which destination you arrive at is entirely up to you. Jesus died to save you. You can sit there and complain, or you can accept the free gift of Salvation. Your choice.

How is it my fault if Adam did the sinning? Do you believe in collective responsibility like the Nazis did?

We can address Jesus later. Right now you need to explain why God allows endless suffering and death of even innocent children.

Think of it this way. You cannot get good fruit from a bad tree. It's the same thing. Adam sinned, and his sinful nature was passed on to everyone who ever lived. It is a spiritual condition. It's not because of what we've done, but what we are. Also, God cursed all of Creation after Adam sinned. Adam is the reason that sin and suffering came into the world. You ask why God hasn't done anything about it. It's because it is not the right time. He will act to correct all wrongs, but He will do it according to His time table. Meanwhile, He sent His only Son so that we might have life. This short physical existence is nothing. Set your eyes on eternity and the condition of your own soul. That's what really matters.

If Adam passed on his sin to all his descendents, it's because that's the way God made him. God is still responsible. You can't get God off the hook for the existence of evil and suffering in the world since he is all powerrull and could have prevented it. If you claim he couldn't have prevented it, then you're admitting that he isn't all powerful, and therefor he isn't God.

How is it not the right time for God to stop evil? If God is all powerfull, he can do this very moment with a mere thought. What's stopping him? If you are a Christian, there's no denying that there is evil in the universe it's because God allows it.

Trying to excuse the evil God allows by saying human life isn't important is simply condoning the existence of evil.

God made Adam by giving him free will. Before that, he gave the angels free will, too, and got Satan. Despite this, he didn't want human robots to do his bidding so he gave Adam and Eve free will. The way I see it, God set up a negative test for Adam and Eve. Afterward, he set up a positive test for obeying God, John 3:16. Due to free will, many do not believe John 3:16 even though they are aware of it. Instead of what you propose, what God has done is put Jesus before each and every individual according to the Bible.

If God is perfect, then why does he need to test the creatures he created? Aren't they supposed to be perfect? If they aren't perfect, then how can you claim God is perfect? It appears God deliberately created them with flaws so he could torture them forever when those flaws expressed themselves. God's punishment for being flawed is extraordinarlly cruel and vindictive. Casting a baby into the lake of fire for eternity because he wasn't babtized couldn't possibly be any crueler.

Your first sentence doesn't make sense. A&E were perfect physically, but they also were given free will. Thus, the Tree of Knowledge was placed in the Garden as a negative test. If they ate from the tree, then they would die. What does Satan speaking though the serpent say to Eve? As for the rest of stuff, it doesn't make sense.

 

[Syriusly]

Yeah- I hear that from Anti-Evolutionists a lot.

Of course you cannot prove that evolution has stopped.

Because of course it hasn't. You just cherry pick some species that you haven't observed changing in your lifetimes and proclaim that evolution is dead.

I have cited an article three times in this thread detailing observed evolution.

You Christianists ignore it of course.

Not only do we not ignore science, we understand that the smarter scientists get, the closer to God they get. We knew that Christ was inter-dimensional long before Hawking figured that there were other dimensions. Einstein had to be introduced to God's space time, before he put it together, almost...
There is one of our notable scientists, that believes he has figured it out. We live in a matrix, and dimensions abound. Christ was in the sixth dimension when he appeared in the upper room. Did you know that?
Christians love science.

Where does the Bible mention dimensions?

Genesis, according to Maimonides. In the 1100's. What he gleaned scientifically from Genesis .

Hmmm how did he test that hypothesis 'scientifically'?

I do love it however, when Christianists resort to a Torah scholar to explain their believe in Creation....

Why wouldn't we refer to the Torah? Same God, different covenant..

Malmonides would disagree with you regarding that. Mailmonides considered Christians to be heretics.

“Know that this Chriatian nation, who are making the claim of a messiah, with all their many different sects, are all idol worshippers and all their holidays are forbidden, and we deal with them regarding religious issues as we would pagans.”

I don't think Malmonides is exactly who you think he is.

 

[Syriusly]

Yeah- I hear that from Anti-Evolutionists a lot.

Of course you cannot prove that evolution has stopped.

Because of course it hasn't. You just cherry pick some species that you haven't observed changing in your lifetimes and proclaim that evolution is dead.

I have cited an article three times in this thread detailing observed evolution.

You Christianists ignore it of course.

Not only do we not ignore science, we understand that the smarter scientists get, the closer to God they get. We knew that Christ was inter-dimensional long before Hawking figured that there were other dimensions. Einstein had to be introduced to God's space time, before he put it together, almost...
There is one of our notable scientists, that believes he has figured it out. We live in a matrix, and dimensions abound. Christ was in the sixth dimension when he appeared in the upper room. Did you know that?
Christians love science.

Where does the Bible mention dimensions?

Genesis, according to Maimonides. In the 1100's. What he gleaned scientifically from Genesis .

Hmmm how did he test that hypothesis 'scientifically'?

I do love it however, when Christianists resort to a Torah scholar to explain their believe in Creation....

Why wouldn't we refer to the Torah? Same God, different covenant.
How did Einstein test his? .

You said that Mailmonides gleaned other dimensions 'scientifically from Genesis'- I asked you how did Mailmonides accomplish this 'scientifically'? Did he test it? Tell us about his 'science'.

 

[Syriusly]

Yeah- I hear that from Anti-Evolutionists a lot.

Of course you cannot prove that evolution has stopped.

Because of course it hasn't. You just cherry pick some species that you haven't observed changing in your lifetimes and proclaim that evolution is dead.

I have cited an article three times in this thread detailing observed evolution.

You Christianists ignore it of course.

Not only do we not ignore science, we understand that the smarter scientists get, the closer to God they get. We knew that Christ was inter-dimensional long before Hawking figured that there were other dimensions. Einstein had to be introduced to God's space time, before he put it together, almost...
There is one of our notable scientists, that believes he has figured it out. We live in a matrix, and dimensions abound. Christ was in the sixth dimension when he appeared in the upper room. Did you know that?
Christians love science.

Where does the Bible mention dimensions?

Genesis, according to Maimonides. In the 1100's. What he gleaned scientifically from Genesis .

Hmmm how did he test that hypothesis 'scientifically'?

I do love it however, when Christianists resort to a Torah scholar to explain their believe in Creation....

And yes. Heaven is IN a different dimension. Hell is not. .

And the Bible says this where?

 

[Syriusly]

[
There was an incident witnessed where Christ had a meeting with Moses and Elijah where the three levitated. You can't do that in our dimensions.

There is no evidence that you can do that in any dimension- or that anyone witnessed any such thing.

You can't use the Bible as evidence of the Bible.

 

[Syriusly]

What are examples of new species?

Every species which exists, really. Only one species was the most recent common ancestor of all species. So, at least (all the species - 1) species on the planet are new species, if not all.

What are examples of new species?

Every species which exists, really. Only one species was the most recent common ancestor of all species. So, at least (all the species - 1) species on the planet are new species, if not all.

Riiight.

What new species have developed in the past 400 years?

I know a few have gone extinct.

Give me an example of an observed new species and not pure crap, pls.

This is the fifth time I have posted this in this thread. I fully expect you to explain why it doesn't count

I noticed the internet fairy tale believers still don't have the balls to respond to this great article I cited- anyone surprised?

Great article.

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.

For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.

 

[Syriusly]

What are examples of new species?

Chawawa, beagles, pit bulls, Doberman, shitsu, Datsun all came from wolves

Those are not new species- those are breeds. Any of those dogs will happily screw any of the others and produce fertile offspring.

 

[Syriusly]

so a fully formed, complex man with millions of cells being produced all at once, is more believable than a single cell being produced??
is this what you saying???

If a cell cannot be created, just like an atom can't be created , then you have to look at what other theories of origins are out there. (BTW molecules can be put together to create something, but not atoms. We can create synthetic diamonds, but not gold. This is as God designed. He put limitations. A man's got to know his limitations as Dirty Harry said.) If it's not based on evolutionary thinking, then it's creation. The arguments have come down to basically these two. Actually, there is a third option where one can choose to ignore the fine tuning facts or laws, as it only applied during expansion, but then they would run into other problems such as fine tuning in biology down the road. Read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy link below.

Here is evidence of what I am talking about. We have sent probes to every planet and now have boiled it down to two in regards to possibility of life bearing and being able to support life if we choose to colonize there. One is Mars which has been studied in-depth and not one microbe has been found. The remaining planet is Europa which is a moon of Jupiter and not a planet. Mars is still highly questionable in regards to supporting life because not enough water has been found. What's there is frozen and scientists think there was water there in the past. That said, if there was water there in the past, then we would find some evidence of past life. Europa still has a chance because studies have shown vast oceans of water within the planet.

What is happening today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper before he died which I will relate to fine tuning below. I mention him because he is the person whom I read to learn of the Big Bang Theory. When these atheist scientists were investigating what happened immediately after the expansion, i.e. big bang, they discovered fine tuning parameters that if they were minutely off, then the universe would have collapsed onto itself. If the speed of expansion was too fast, then gravity would not have been able to pull the planets, moons and stars together . Look up John Leslie and fine tuning for an evolutionist view of fine tuning. There are too many parameters to discuss in this short space, so I post links to two web pages, one creation science and the other neutral philosophy that give detailed explanation. The creation science link discusses the parameters and shows how great the chances are of life happening as the universe and earth formed. This is why Stephen Hawking asked, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" The other link discusses the competing theories. One even asks if a response is necessary. It seems to state, "It is what it is."

The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning

Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

What we learn today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper two weeks before he died. In it he discusses why there are multiverses. It's tries to explain how multiverses could form as other scientists have done like Guth, Linde, Weinberg and others. Why multiverses are important is because it is atheist science's or evolutionary thinking's hypothesis to counter the fine tuning of an intelligent designer and support the anthropic principle. One name for it is the eternal chaotic inflation hypothesis. Creation science thinks fine tuning is evidence for God and creation.

Article and link to his paper from Cornell is within.
Read Stephen Hawking's Final Paper On How To Find Parallel Universes, Submitted Just Two Weeks Before He Died

Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean

if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??

That's just idiotic. Evolution can't readily explain how an asexual single-cell turned into a sexual one.

I just saw it explained. Just YouTube it. There are over 100 dwarf planets in our outer solar system. Bet the ones with water and active cores and organic material all have life in their oceans.

If they discover life in Serius or titan or on Pluto what will you say then?

What is your hypothesis?

Which ones are these dwarf planets? Can we get there, i.e. send a probe there? So far, we've sent probes to every planet in our solar system. None has life, but evos still hold out hope for Mars (life existed there previously), Europa (moon of Jupiter) and Titan (moon of Saturn). My evo website has admitted that life outside of earth is rare, but didn't give a reason. ).

We have no evidence of life anywhere but earth. Mars may have had life previously- but we don't know that.

So if there is life on other planets- would that be signs of evolution? Or of creation?

 

[Syriusly]

The horshoe crab is evidence for creation. There are many living fossils that evolutionists thought died millions of years ago, but nothing of the sort. They are still alive today and have not changed, i.e. no evolution.

That isn't proof of creationism. The fact that some animals haven't evolved much isn't a violation of the principles of natural selection. If they have a good design that allows them to thrive, then why should they evolve??

You are implying that there is a choice of whether or not something evolves. Since the whole evolution thingy is based on random mutations, those mutations would continue..

Mutations continue all of the time.

If you understood the basic theory of evolution, you would understand that most mutations do nothing, most of the remainder are harmful, and that mutations normally will only be passed on when they provide a competitive advantage to the creatures.

Why has the horseshoe crab stayed very similar for all of this time? Because it works well- but the bigger fallacy is the claim that the horseshoe crab of today is identical to that of millions of years ago- they are very similar- not identical.

I have to explain the horseshoe crab argument from creationists.... It is an anti-evolution argument from creationists.

OTOH those who believe in evolution are surprised when they find a living fossil such as the coealacanth and Wollemi pine tree. In this context, "because it works well" does not follow the ToE. Evolution is based on change over time and there are many "living fossils" that have not changed over time. Atheist scientists would have to change the ToE to explain imho.

Of course it is an anti-evolution argument from Christianists. It is an incredibly ignorant argument that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and is based upon false premises.

Everyone was surprised when a living coelacanth was discovered- because we had only observed them in the fossil record. Scientists- those who accept the theory of evolution have no problem with either the horseshoe crab or the coelacanth- they are all part of the marvels of evolution.

The false premise on your part is that the 'living fossils' are identical to those from millions of years ago- they are very similar- not identical.

And if they were identical? There is nothing about the theory of evolution which says that a species cannot remain the same.

But you Christianists tie yourself up into knots trying to rationalize how the world started 6,000 years ago when we have fossils showing that life existed millions of years ago, and we are getting light from stars that originated millions of years ago.

 

[Syriusly]

Where does the Bible mention dimensions?

Genesis, according to Maimonides. In the 1100's. What he gleaned scientifically from Genesis .

Hmmm how did he test that hypothesis 'scientifically'?

I do love it however, when Christianists resort to a Torah scholar to explain their believe in Creation....

Why wouldn't we refer to the Torah? Same God, different covenant.
How did Einstein test his? His math wouldn't gel. Then Hubble introduced him to space time. That helped the math, but still Einstein would apologize to his peers for it not being exactly right. Had he added the unseen dimensions, he would have been spot on in his calculations. We have since realized they are there.

And yes. Heaven is IN a different dimension. Hell is not.

There was an incident witnessed where Christ had a meeting with Moses and Elijah where the three levitated. You can't do that in our dimensions.

Einstein came up with the theory of relativity when Hubble was still an unknown.

Einstein came up with the theory of relativity after Hubble showed Einstein that the universe was not constant, but expanding. That fact shot Einstein's theory of a constant cosmos to hell. He discarded it and embraced the theory of relativity with his new found knowledge.

Well that Hubble must of been a prodigy- since Einstein developed the theory of relativity between 1905-1915, and Hubble was born in 1889

 

[james bond]

The horshoe crab is evidence for creation. There are many living fossils that evolutionists thought died millions of years ago, but nothing of the sort. They are still alive today and have not changed, i.e. no evolution.

That isn't proof of creationism. The fact that some animals haven't evolved much isn't a violation of the principles of natural selection. If they have a good design that allows them to thrive, then why should they evolve??

You are implying that there is a choice of whether or not something evolves. Since the whole evolution thingy is based on random mutations, those mutations would continue..

Mutations continue all of the time.

If you understood the basic theory of evolution, you would understand that most mutations do nothing, most of the remainder are harmful, and that mutations normally will only be passed on when they provide a competitive advantage to the creatures.

Why has the horseshoe crab stayed very similar for all of this time? Because it works well- but the bigger fallacy is the claim that the horseshoe crab of today is identical to that of millions of years ago- they are very similar- not identical.

I have to explain the horseshoe crab argument from creationists.... It is an anti-evolution argument from creationists.

OTOH those who believe in evolution are surprised when they find a living fossil such as the coealacanth and Wollemi pine tree. In this context, "because it works well" does not follow the ToE. Evolution is based on change over time and there are many "living fossils" that have not changed over time. Atheist scientists would have to change the ToE to explain imho.

Of course it is an anti-evolution argument from Christianists. It is an incredibly ignorant argument that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and is based upon false premises.

Everyone was surprised when a living coelacanth was discovered- because we had only observed them in the fossil record. Scientists- those who accept the theory of evolution have no problem with either the horseshoe crab or the coelacanth- they are all part of the marvels of evolution.

The false premise on your part is that the 'living fossils' are identical to those from millions of years ago- they are very similar- not identical.

And if they were identical? There is nothing about the theory of evolution which says that a species cannot remain the same.

But you Christianists tie yourself up into knots trying to rationalize how the world started 6,000 years ago when we have fossils showing that life existed millions of years ago, and we are getting light from stars that originated millions of years ago.

If it's an anti-evolution argument, then anyone can use it. It just happened to be by a Christian.

What you state isn't logical, and you go all over the place with 6K years and light from stars. You're bringing in a creationist argument when I just stated it is an anti-evolution argument.

Horseshoe crabs nor coelacanth didn't just create themselves. The crab is still part of the same species. And here's where you're wrong about ToE. It is based on changes over time. In this case, the species didn't change. It stayed on a branch of the tree of life and didn't go anywhere. You mentioned they changed to be similar, but not identical, and then state nothing in the ToE says that a species cannot remain the same (!). That statement means you do not understand the ToE.

ToE explained here
An introduction to evolution

Furthermore, the millions of years ago is based on the strata layers. These living fossils of Darwin such as the horseshoe crab are found in different layers. Look up what Darwin said about living fossils and about extinction. We keep getting older crabs and it makes the science papers and news. Again, what it means is these living fossils such as the horseshoe crab aren't oddities and that extinction didn't take place due to it evolving into another species better able to survive. While it did not apply to the horseshoe crab, it did apply to coelacanth. That was the thinking for the coelacanth and we found out that it wasn't true.

Extinctions
Extinctions: Georges Cuvier

It has nothing to do with mutations. You don't understand that either
Mutations

The argument goes like this from evos:
".. one evolutionist protested: “There is no written rule that says a lineage has to die out just because an offspring develops a beneficial mutation. The theory of evolution explains how species change over time, it doesn’t say that all species must change over time. As long as a species can survive in its environment and pass on its genetic information to its offspring, it can survive indefinitely. It doesn’t mean that the ‘living fossil’ didn’t speciate, it just means those possible splits died out while the original lineage was able to always successfully reproduce even into today. How exactly does that not work with evolution?”

The anti-evolutionists counters with:
"“If a scientist believes in evolution and sees fossils that look like modern organisms at the dinosaur digs, he/she might invent an hypothesis to ‘explain’ living fossils this way: ‘Yes I believe that animals have changed greatly over time (evolution), but some animals and plants were so well adapted to the environment that they did not need to change. So I am not bothered at all by living fossils.’ This added hypothesis says that some animals did not evolve. But if a theory can be so flexible, adding hypotheses that predict the opposite of your main theory, one could never disprove the theory. The theory then becomes unsinkable, and an unsinkable theory is not science.”

That's what you just did in your pro-evolution argument. You can't have it both ways.

Dodging living fossils - creation.com

 

[bripat9643]

Where does the Bible mention dimensions?

Genesis, according to Maimonides. In the 1100's. What he gleaned scientifically from Genesis .

Hmmm how did he test that hypothesis 'scientifically'?

I do love it however, when Christianists resort to a Torah scholar to explain their believe in Creation....

Why wouldn't we refer to the Torah? Same God, different covenant.
How did Einstein test his? His math wouldn't gel. Then Hubble introduced him to space time. That helped the math, but still Einstein would apologize to his peers for it not being exactly right. Had he added the unseen dimensions, he would have been spot on in his calculations. We have since realized they are there.

And yes. Heaven is IN a different dimension. Hell is not.

There was an incident witnessed where Christ had a meeting with Moses and Elijah where the three levitated. You can't do that in our dimensions.

Einstein came up with the theory of relativity when Hubble was still an unknown.

Einstein came up with the theory of relativity after Hubble showed Einstein that the universe was not constant, but expanding. That fact shot Einstein's theory of a constant cosmos to hell. He discarded it and embraced the theory of relativity with his new found knowledge.

Wrong. It's the other way around:

Hubble's law - Wikipedia​

Hubble's law is considered the first observational basis for the expansion of the universe and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model.[3][4] The motion of astronomical objects due solely to this expansion is known as the Hubble flow.[5]

Although widely attributed to Edwin Hubble, the law was first derived from the general relativity equations, in 1922, by Alexander Friedmann who published a set of equations, now known as the Friedmann equations, showing that the universe might expand, and presenting the expansion speed if this was the case.[6] Then Georges Lemaître, in a 1927 article, proposed the expansion of the universe and suggested an estimated value of the rate of expansion, which when corrected by Hubble became known as the Hubble constant.[​