There is no evolutionary model in that example. It’s poker hands.
5 Likes
What out would like if it were right is that we wouldn’t have two sexes, we wouldn’t have morals, etc. The model doesn’t work.
Such claims would require evidence.
Why not assume a de novo creation model of humanity and see if that hypothesis checks out?
That’s what I mean - we have the evidence. How did we randomly get a poker hand that caused two sexes? I’d argue it requires design.
We have done that many, many times. If humans were created separately from other species then there is no reason why humans should fit into the nested hierarchy of life. In fact, if species or created kinds were separately created then there is no reason to expect a nested hierarchy. The only reason we would expect to see a nested hierarchy is if evolution and common ancestry were true.
Those are assertions, not evidence.
1 Like
Yes, got it. I don’t understand why you don’t see that undermines your argument.
Why should creationists need to defend their specific model when you’re just trying to prove some evolutionary model could happen, not actually proving the one we have? Correct me if I’m still not understanding you. Scientists can make plenty of pretty mathematically arguments for theories of everything but if they don’t have a basis in reality, they’re still wrong.
I don’t understand why you think it does. If some 5 mutations can accumulate in 500 generations, then how can it be a problem at all to discover that 5 mutations have occurred over those 500 generations?
I don’t know what the nested hierarchy entails. Similarity of gene sequences?
Why wouldn’t God want humans and animals to appear to be closely related, but in a special relationship unique and separate from the one we have with other humans? The Bible explains that we do have that relationship with animals.
That’s exactly the problem with the argument you are defending. Sanford has mathematically modeled some sort of process he’s made up and shown that it can’t work. Very nice. But that process is not evolution. Yet he calls it “evolution.” Can you explain why?
1 Like
A nested hierarchy is a pattern of both similarities and differences.
Why would God want that? Why couldn’t God create humans with a brand new genome not found in other species? Why couldn’t God borrow genes from birds, bats, dogs, and mice to make a new genome?
It doesn’t say anything about genetics or a nested hierarchy.
That’s like saying someone cheated at poker because their 5 card hand had a 1 in 3 million chance of occurring.
I really don’t understand atheists. We tell you that God specially created us to be rulers with Him, sons who inherit the earth, loved children and you want to go play in the mud and claim we’re nothing special and just random acts of chance.
It has a lot of designed beauty doesn’t it?
I don’t even think I have to argue from the Bible. I think we intuitively know its true. see
Revelation 5
So I wept much, because no one was found worthy to open [a]and read the scroll, or to look at it. 5 But one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep. Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has prevailed to open the scroll and [b]to loose its seven seals.”
I like google as it’s easier finding others’ arguments that I agree with. Definitely going to listen to this podcast. https://bibleproject.com/podcast/theme-son-man-e2-humans-animals/
Tim notices that humans are the “second comers” to creation, who are given the responsibility to rule over the animals who came first.
Why does God tell humans that he has given every plant for food for the other living creatures? Surely, the reason is that it is the humans who need to know that the produce of the earth is not intended to feed them alone, but also all the living species of the earth. The clear implication is that the earth can provide enough food for all creatures. Humans are not to fill the earth and subdue it in a way that leaves no room and no sustenance for the other creatures who share the earth with them. God has given them too the right to live from the soil. So the human right to make use of the earth, to live from it, is far from unlimited. It must respect the existence of other creatures.
The biblical portrait of human dominion over the animals must be filled out by the Bible’s vision of “royal rule.” Since Genesis depicts the image of God as a kind of royal function, the rule of a king over others, it is worth recalling the only passage in the law of Moses that refers to the role of the king in Israel (Deut. 17: 14– 20). There it is emphasized that the king is one among his brothers and sisters, his fellow-Israelites, and should not forget it. He should not accumulate wealth or arms or indulge in any of the ways kings usually exalt themselves above their subjects. Only if they remember their fundamental solidarity with their people will kings be able to rule truly for the benefit of their people. Similarly, only when humans remember their fundamental solidarity with their fellow-creatures will they be able to exercise their distinctive authority within creation for the benefit of other creatures.” (pp. 226-228)
Tim says that humans bear responsibility for animal’s destiny; that’s why we are called to rule them. This is humanity acting in their identity of the divine image.
Ultimately, nested hierarchies are literally scattered all over the Bible - man made in the image of God, woman made from man, fish from the sea, animals and Adam from the dust of Adamah. We’re ingrafted into Christ. The Son is the only begotten of the father. The Gentiles are incorporated into Israel. I could probably keep going and think of more.
Because it’s the world we have? Lol.
[insert the picture of the face of a sad person]
Who are you replying to? And why sad? 
Umm, how is that even remotely a response to my comment? Look, if all this is going way over your head, just admit that. Your last string of comments really show no comprehension of what we are discussing.
If I assume a separate de novo creation model of humanity 6,000 years ago, I would expect the genes to be human and the genes to be chimpanzee to share similarities only for functional requirements. I would not expect to the same mutations.
You cannot say, there is not enough time, because if there was not enough time for these exact mutations there is not enough time for any mutation.
It is something like saying nobody is likely to win the lottery again for a million years, because it is statistically unlikely to have those exact same numbers come up again. Therefore you can only accept there was a winner if you presume the lottery has already gone on for a million years. But no such presumption is needed, or conclusion justified, because the logic is internally flawed.
If you want to understand atheists then the first thing you have to understand is the difference between assertions and evidence. Atheists are interested in evidence, not empty assertions.
Nonsequitur.
That’s not a nested hierarchy.
4 Likes
There’s more to life than scientific evidence.
Why not?
We already covered this. Reread previous posts.