| Newsgroups |
alt.bible,alt.bible.prophecy,alt.christnet.bible,alt.christnet |
| Organization |
Forte - www.forteinc.com |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
On Fri, 21 Aug 2026 02:40:34 -0700, Samuel Spade <[email protected]>
wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> Samuel Spade <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >[email protected] wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 08 Aug 2026 19:09:48 -0700, Samuel Spade <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >[email protected] wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 06 Aug 2026 22:06:10 -0700, Samuel Spade <[email protected]> wrote:>
>> >> >> >[email protected] wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Darwin's doubts #4
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Fully complete species suddenly appear in lowest strata.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >That's not exactly what he said.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >What do you mean by "complete species"?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hello,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Dogs show up as full dogs, cat's as full cats. Not half dogs or half
>> >> >> cats, which is how it should be if macroevolution was real.
>> >> >
>> >> >Dogs are evolved/bred from grey wolves, starting around
>> >> >20,000 to 25,000 years ago. Most of the modern breeds
>> >> >appeared in the last couple centuries.
>>
>> That is microevolution. And was programmed into them by their Creator.
>
>Dog evolution is evolution. Artificial selection, not
>natural, and altho dogs & wolves are considered different
>species, they can still interbreed.
That's man's classification. God has his own.
>
>
>> But if humans in a lab took one species (kind) and turned it into a
>> different species (kind), then I would not say it contradicts the
>> Bible. Because it takes high intelligence to make it happen.
>>
>> >Dogs have been selectively evolved into a cornucopia of
>> >diverse breeds with very different morphologies, all in a
>> >very short time. Give em more time and you'll see new
>> >species, families and classes. Probably not new phyla.
You will NEVER see a new species evolved from a different species.
No human has ever seen that happen, and never will in nature.
>>
>> But they are still dog-like. Also, no one has witnessed a species
>> turning into a completely new species. Like dog to rabbit, etc.
>
>It's only 25,000 years since they were wolves. Yet look how
>different dogs appear from each other, and from wolves.
Yes, it is programmed in that species by their Creator. But they are
ALWAYS dogs that they evolved into.
>
>Dog to rabbit? Unlikely in less than tens of millions of
>years, they are different orders. But they do have a common
>ancestor.
What whales? It might as well be since in reality, there are no common
ancestors. All animals were created whole. (dogs were dogs, and cats
were cats right from their beginning)
But if you insist on a common source, all life on this planet comes
from one common source, Jehovah God.
>
>
>> >> >A common ancestor of dogs and cats is the miacids, such as
>> >> >the cute little critter called Dormaalocyon latouri that
>> >> >lived 55 million years ago. (Note: a transitional species.)
>> >> ><https://www.livescience.com/42342-tiny-carnivore-ancestor-discovered.html
>> >>
>> >> And of course humans watched them 'evolved' into things like bears and
>> >> dogs and cats. What, no one witnessed it? Then how can you be sure it
>> >> is the ancestor of them? Since no humans were around then, they are
>> >> just having a theory of that.
>> >
>> >The fossil and DNA evidence is beyond reasonable doubt.
>>
>> "Actually that evidence" helps to support "creation" over
>> macroevolution.
>
>It doesn't. The changes in genome are consistent. We don't
>ever see anything completely different. There are never new
>species that are completely new from the ground up.
>
>
Since there are a trillion of different life forms on this planet,
there should be many changing into new forms. Also, a frog with two
heads is not a new species, but is just a natural mutated frog. And,
they usually don't live very long.
>> >Did you watch God create "kinds" and stars and people during
>> >creation time? What, no one witnessed it?
>>
>> Actually Jesus and the angels did from Heaven with God.
>> But true, no human ever witnessed the creation account with "Kinds"
>> and stars, etc. And just because something is written down doesn't
>> make it automatically true.
>
>That's just mythology passed for generations by spoken word.
>There's no record from then. It was probably not written
>down until after the babylonian exile.
No one knows for sure.
>
>
>> >> And if they REALLY came from miacids,
>> >> dogs and cats and weasels and bears all should be able interbreed with
>> >> each other.
>> >
>> >I don't know where you get this idea from. I've explained it
>> >to you before but you seem to think repetition is persuasion.
>>
>> Repetition of God's word is to walk on a righteous path.
>
>Then you must be righteouser than a broken record.
We don't generally have records and record players anymore. Could say
'a corrupted music video'.
>> >Do you expect that a Buick and a 737 should have
>> >interchangeable parts?
>>
>> Not that I am aware of. So what is your point?
>
>Why do you expect that all animals have all their various
>genes in the same place on the same chromasomes? Do you know
>what it means to evolve? It means the DNA undergoes changes
>which cause the organism to be different, for better or
>worse. Do you expect the Buick engine to fit in a 737 and
>still work?
MOST mutations are NEGATIVE to the life form. That's like trying to go
to some particular place with 1 step forward, and two steps backward.
That a trillion life forms turned into complex species, many with the
same features such as eyes, ears, legs, head, hands of various kinds,
brains mostly situated in the head.
And for the top prize, the human brain. It is about 3 lbs of 60% fat.
Yet it has produced most the wonders of the world, like the pyramids
of Egypt, and the 13,000 miles of the Great Wall of China.
And what to me is the most remarkable thing is that something
mindless, brainless, with an IQ of ZERO, many people say did all that
Creating.
>
>
>> >> >The lineage splits 42 million years ago into canines and
>> >> >felines, leading to the many species we have today. There
>> >> >are many transitional species along the way.
>> >>
>> >> Since humans were not around then, they use their logic thinking that
>> >> they figured it out.
>> >
>> >Correct. The evidence is pretty clear. The best argument
>> >creationists can make is that God intervened in evolution
>> >from time to time. As a scientific hypothesis it runs up
>> >against non-falsifyability, and the problem of having no
>> >empirical evidence for God (pick your particular god).
>>
>> The evidence is all around you. If we were made of nuts and bolts,
>> you could see that someone intelligent made us. There would be no
>> question about it.
>
>Reductio ad absurdum. Nuts and bolts don't reproduce. Do
>you understand why that's critical?
If evolution produced nuts and bolts, I'm sure many people would say
they could reproduce.
Try this. Set the latest android next to a human. Then I tell you they
found the android out in the deep woods made by nature, and it took
millions of years. And many would say, "Are you daffy? Of course
someone smart built it."
Yet the MORE SOPHISTICATED BIOLOGICAL MACHINE NEXT TO IT, they say
mindless, brainless, zero IQ, force created it.
>
>
>> But we are made of even better stuff. We are water-proof, self healing
>> for most cuts and bruises, a marvelous brain for constructing things,
>> etc, etc.
>
>Not bad for undirected intelligence, no?
It's not only bad, but impossible. If I take a 1000 piece puzzle and
throw it up in the air, how many times would I have to do that to
where it fell completed?
Answer= A 4 with 3100 zero's after it. (AI Overview)
The total number of atoms in the universe is less than that.
As AI continued:
"Even if you could throw and land the puzzle a trillion times every
single second, the universe would end from heat death long before you
ever saw it land assembled."
YET THE HUMAN BRAIN IS FAR, FAR MORE COMPLEX.
How many times would it take a mindless force to produce a human
brain?
AI says,
"Producing a functional human brain purely by random, mindless
physical forces requires an unfathomable number of attemptsÂestimated
in statistical mechanics as roughly \(10^{10^{50}}\) or more random
configurationsÂmaking the probability of it happening by pure chance
alone effectively zero."
YET EVOLUTIONISTS SAY IT ALREADY HAPPENED. And not just once, but
millions of times with brains of animals, etc.
>
>
>> >> Also, Darwin could not find transitional species, and that bothered
>> >> his him about his theory.
>> >
>> >We have a lot of things today that Darwin didn't have.
>> >Transition species is one of them.
>>
>> Why didn't Darwin find transitional species? Did they just suddenly
>> appear in our day only?
>
>1. In 1850 there weren't a lot of fossils been collected,
>and even fewer could be identified.
>
>2. Transitional species are all around. Darwin just didn't
>know what to look for. Pterodactyl, anyone?
How about evolution's finale fireworks: The PLATYPUS.
It took many of its different creations, threw them in a pot, and
outcomes the platypus.
>3. Darwin expected changes to be slow and gradual, not the
>"punctuated equilibrium" that we see.
It is beyond amazing what they say random chance can produce.
>
>4. We can see the progression in existing life forms, from
>rodent to raccoon to lemur to monkeys, or something like
>that.
>
Don't forget your prize: chimpanzee to human or is it human to
chimpanzee? Anything goes in a fantasy.
>> >> >We have fossil evidence showing family trees. But even more
>> >> >important, DNA evidence is now available. It supports what
>> >> >we already knew.
>> >>
>> >> You can't guarantee that DNA proves your point. IE says that
>> >
>> >There's no such thing as a guarantee or "proof" in science.
>> >All science is provisional. Any belief that makes guarantees
>> >or offers "proof" is not science.
>>
>> Then you are saying that science never shows proof of things?
>> Looks like we live on two different planets.
>
>Bingo!
>
>Nothing can be proven.
>
>If you disagree, prove something. Anything.
>
>Nothing can be proven to absolute certitude. Sometimes
>things can be disproven. Sometimes an observation seems to
>always hold true, yet it can't be proven. So we use it as
>knowledge, provisionally, until it's disproven. That's
>called an axiom. We can accept and work with axioms "beyond
>reasonable doubt", with the caveats.
>
>Can you prove 2+2=4? Try it. Show your work. That's why
>it's an axiom.
That's evolution all the way. But calling it an axiom is giving it too
much. It should be called a 'fantasy'.
>
>Science is a process, specifically this algorithm:
>1. Observation
>2. Hypothesis
>3. Experimentation
>4. Conclusion.
>5. GOTO 1
>
>It's that simple. And it works like a windshield wiper on a
>duck's ass.
>
>Science is about hypothesis and theory, trying something new,
>disproving it, trying something else, and going with the
>best-fit theory until something better comes along.
1. Observation= the orderly universe, the complexity of various life
forms.
2. Hypothesis= This couldn't have happened by random chance. (see
above the 1000 piece puzzle)
3. Experimentation= fruit fly experiment never produced a new species,
just mutated fruit flies. And as more experiments took place,
genetically it got rid of the mutations, and went back to regular
fruit flies.
4. Conclusion= There is super a high intelligence that created all
natural things.
>
>> >> chimpanzees and humans have 98.8% of DNA matched. Well that should do
>> >> it, right?
>> >>
>> >> But there is a monkey wrench tossed in. (no joke in tended) THEY CAN'T
>> >> INTERBREED! Even though the DNA is mathematically very close, Jehovah
>> >> set up two different Kinds" Thus evolution didn't work here. (except
>> >> there was microevolution)
>
>I don't see a problem there. I mean, if you're into coupling
>with monkeys or livestock, there's no chance of embarrassing
>unwanted pregnancies, because what would the other monkeys
>think?
Maybe if just one coupling would work it will roll back to the caveman
days, and start all over again.
>
>> >I don't know where you get your number.
>>
>> From AI.
>>
>> > As I pointed out,
>> >and which seems to have whooshed you, chimps have 24 pairs of
>> >chromasomes. Humans have 23. Does that mean something to
>> >you?
>>
>> Yes, that if they evolved, they should be able to interbreed since
>> they are so close genetically.
>
>Hello? Chimp: 24 pairs of chromasomes. Human: only 23. Do
>you see any issues there?
Not evolutionary.
>
>Remember any chromasomes from high school biology? Anything
>about them being in pairs? DNA had already been discovered
>when you went to high school, right?
My memory has been on a sabbatical for a while. I do not recall DNA,
although it has been around before I was born.
If you recall, they went nuts on that with the O.J.Simpson trials.
>
>> >Their respective genes are not necessarily in the same place
>> >in the genome either.
>>
>> But their similar genetics should have them breeding together.
>
>Again: Genes not in the same place. Eyeball gene on one
>chromasome, toe gene in same place on other chromasome?
>Doesn't sound like a recipe for failure?
Failure of brainless evolution producing a trillion different life
forms is a big fat zero. (see above odds of mindless evolution in
producing just the human brain)
>
>> >> >You probably reject all this because it contradicts Genesis.
>> >>
>> >> And it contradicts common sense. Such as creating the human brain.
>> >
>> >Common sense tells you that the earth is flat.
>> >
>> >Give us data, not appeals to authority.
>>
>> Appeals to authority CAN BE the data.
>
>The bible isn't data. I'm pretty sure you agree.
Sorry, but I do not agree. What is data?
"Data is a collection of raw, unorganized facts, figures,
measurements, or symbols that can be processed to create meaningful
information." (AI Overview)
Thus the Bible is chock full of data.
>
>> >> And evolution has no brain. When you have a thing without a brain
>> >> producing very complex biologies, let me know.
>
>Ok. It's happening now.
In your dreams maybe.
>
>AI has no brain, but it has algorithms. Does it have
>intelligence? Like science, AI adapts with what work.
>Whether it's intelligent or not is a matter of semantics.
>
>Like AI, evolution is recursive. Its algorithm is
>ridiculously simple.
>
>If it walks like intelligence and quacks like intelligence,
>it's smart enough to make life.
"AI Overview No, humans have not yet created a fully living
organism from completely non-living chemical components from scratch
in a laboratory."
>
>
>> >> >We don't have a lot of scientific data supporting creation.
>> >>
>> >> Life always comes from life. And all biologicals stay as biological
>> >> "kinds".
>> >
>> >This is just speculation. You don't have data or a deductive
>> >progression, it's just "this sounds right to me so it must be
>> >so".
>>
>> You don't have to have 6 PhD's to comment on evolution.
>
>You don't need PhDs, but if you want to be taken seriously,
>you have to at least make sense. That means having a
>structured systematic thesis for why life can't come from
>non-life. Good luck with that, because you're probably going
>to create life before you prove you can't.
Life from non-life doesn't happen in nature.
>
>Until someone does that, it's all "just-so" speculation on
>faith, and faith is religion not science.
Christianity is also scientific. It has to be because God created the
universe including the human brain:
-- King James
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
God's fingerprints are all over the place.
>
>
>> Yes, the proof is all around us. Something brainless built it all?
>> Millions of species? And not so much as a microbe on other planets or
>> moons. Why did your macroevolution go nuts here on earth, but zilch
>> elsewhere?
>
>We've been here before. You don't know whether there's life
>on other bodies or not, and there probably is.
So far ziltz. If evolution went bananas here, life should be raining
elsewhere. If nothing else, there should at least be extremophiles. We
don't even see that.
>
>
>> >Then, you have never observed biblical creation either.
>> >Therefore it's impossible, right?
>>
>> Not based on the evidence. If one does research on the Bible and
>> always find it true, then it is logical that things that it comments
>> on where no humans were around, be true also.
>
>The bible is already found to not always be true.
I know of only a couple of things that are wrong. They have to do with
numbers. It is like 1,000 chariots, or 10,000 chariots.
>
>
>> >Neanderthals were a separate species. They were
>> >transitional, having interbred with humans. There's also
>> >Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and at least 8 other homo
>> >species. Some were transitional, some were dead-ends.
>>
>> With all those homo's around, why couldn't Darwin have found many
>> transitional species?
>
>Darwin didn't spend much time in Olduvai Gorge, or Java or
>central asia. Darwin wan't a fossil hunter.
He had to be since much of his theory studied fossils in strata.
>
>> >James, you are to be commended for engaging. If you want to
>> >debate creationism v. evolution on the net, you should
>> >refresh yourself on high school biology. Like:
>> >
>> ><https://www.amazon.com/dp/1328505944>
>> >or
>> ><https://www.amazon.com/dp/0470117737>
>>
>> Thank you for the compliment. But those apostles in the Bible were
>> "unlettered and ordinary". (Acts 4:13) The Bible was not written in
>> scientific jargon. So no special education is needed to understand it,
>> other than to read and write.
Have a good one!
What is going to happen
in the many tomorrows?
Go to: jw.org (8/25/2026)
[email protected]