YECs perfect world:

[gluadys]

Evolution contends that enough natural selection makes a new species. You're absolutely right, it is a requirement. But at some point, taking that to Darwin's own ends, all the birds share one common ancestor, all the bipeds share one common ancestor, all the reptiles share one common ancestor.

That is correct.

That's not a set of blinkers (and I think you'll find the term is "blinders")

Where I come from "blinkers" refers to the headgear placed on a horse to prevent it from being distracted by what is going on beside it by keeping its field of vision restricted to what is ahead of it. It could well be that in your region they are called "blinders". Such regional variations in vocabulary are common.

Speciation and natural selection is not evolution as traditionally defined.

They are precisely how evolution has been defined by science for more than a century. I agree that creationists reject the scientific definition.

They are both examples of microevolution, which is just another term for natural selection. I have no problem with natural selection.

And science recognizes micro-evolution as evolution. Why else would it be called micro-evolution? Furthermore, science recognizes that micro-evolution and macro-evolution are different phases of the same evolutionary process. They are not different processes. Macro-evolution is the inevitable product of micro-evolution, and at all stages the process is evolution.

Now, if we can just get you to stop calling it evolution and begin calling it natural selection, because that is what it is.

Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution. It is how evolution happens. Wherever you have a process of natural selection, evolution is happening. You cannot separate them as if they were different events.

This is not semantics. These are the facts. Only evolutionists play semantic games, because they desperately need there to be an answer other than the God they claim doesn't exist.

Tut! tut! tut! Remember who you are speaking to. TEs don't claim God doesn't exist. TEs insist that God exists and that evolution is a work of God.

[/FONT][/COLOR]If it dies, how is it "more fittingly" adapted to its environment? Seems to me "dead" is a decidedly negative vote against the mutation that killed it.

If it isn't, the animal dies and then it isn't even "natural selection" as defined by Darwin, because he considered natural selection to be only that which improved a species.

I was responding to the section in bold.

Obviously, you didn't read far enough into the article. Go back and try again. The beaks change with the amount of rain in a given year, not by genetic encoding.

Oh, the beaks change all right, but in size not in softness as you originally stated.

You also misunderstand the nature of the change. You are speaking as if it is the size of the beak in individuals that changes, that the offspring of birds with small beaks acquire larger beaks or vice versa. That is not the case. It is not the beaks of particular birds or species of birds that changes. So changes in genetic coding are not required. It is the average size of beaks in the population as a whole that changes. And that, assuredly, is evolution.

Moreover, all 13 finch varieties (an aside: most modern scientists say the only reason their still called "Darwin's finches" is because the great evolution visionary called them finches, but they are actually larks and sparrows) display the beak variations, not just a couple of the varieties as Darwin initially reported.

You have it backwards about. The birds showed such variety that Darwin thought they were different species such as larks and sparrows as well as finches. It was only when his specimens were examined by an ornithologist back in England that they were all identified as finches and nothing but finches.

There are none. No one can show any, because they do not exist. Claiming evolution happens is as ludicrous as claiming UFO's are from Mars -- or any other planet.

It seems you are right. It is blinders, not blinkers.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The beaks change with the amount of rain in a given year, not by genetic encoding.

this is simply not true. what changes is the relative % of the population that has each beak style.. the beaks themselves do not change. what changes is the probabiliy of a particular subpopulation surviving to reproduce. in good years the small beaked birds have an advantage, in the bad years a large beaked bird does, as a result the next cohort hatched has an influence from the environment of their parents. But the genetics doesn't change with the weather, the relative % of each subpopulation does.

this is a big deal.

 

[steen]

Speciation has nothing to do with Evolution.

regardless of how many times you repeat that falsehood, it remains false.

Speciation may be defined as "macro-evolution", but an arbitrary definition doesn't effect reality. If you define the moon as green, that doesn't make the moon green.

And?

Speciation means an animal (and its offspring) can't reproduce with its parent's population. It doesn't mean that animal is any less then same kind of animal.

What is a "kind"?

Any expert on Evolution would know this, so why do they deny this?

An expert on Evolution would know that your characterization of evolution is blatantly false.

As IisJustMe said, "the premise of evolution is the creation of new species different from that which has existed before." The key word is different.

And just as Iisjustme is in error, so are you in error.

 

[steen]

That's the same thing! Why restate it?

It isn't. Gluadys is correct. The previous claim is not. If you knew anything about Evolution, you would see this. As it stands, your claim is false.

That makes no sense.

Sure it does. But again, it requires that you actually know what Evolution is, that you know what you are talking about in this subject.

Evolution contends that enough natural selection makes a new species. You're absolutely right, it is a requirement.

Natural Selection is requirement for anew species. But it doesn't have to lead to a new species. Even if no speciation had ever occurred. Evolution would still have taken place.

But at some point, taking that to Darwin's own ends, all the birds share one common ancestor, all the bipeds share one common ancestor, all the reptiles share one common ancestor.

To some extend. There are a few principles of similarities that you probably are not ready for yet.

Why do you run from stating that obvious fact? Could it be because there is absolutely no evidence supporting the contention? I suspect so.

You seem to have a tendency to "suspect" wrong. Several different scientific fields show confirming evidence independent of each other.

I'm not sure you realize that statement surrenders the evolutionary theory to the creationists and says, "You're right, we're wrong, let's all go home now."

Actually, it doesn't. Perhaps it is bringing creationist claims in line with Evolution and makes you admit that Evolution occurs, but that's the only possible scenario I see here.

And I'm not sure you realize steen and others will absolutely reject that statement as being accurate from their viewpoint.

I really saw nothing in Gluadys post that I disagree with. Your claim is false.

That's not a set of blinkers (and I think you'll find the term is "blinders")

Blinkers, actually.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/blinker
(See definition 3)

but an insistence on being honest about what is being observed. Speciation and natural selection is not evolution as traditionally defined.

Yes, it is. You have seen evidence for this several times here. If you did that google search I suggested above, you would see a full page of links that showed the definition of Evolution essentially (and mainly literally) as a change in alleles over generations. That is what evolution is. that you have leaned otherwise and refuse to modify your misrepresentation in the face of multiple, independent sources of evidence that is not our fault. Your claim remains false.

They are both examples of microevolution, which is just another term for natural selection.

Which is Evolution.

I have no problem with natural selection. Examples of it can be found throughout nature, throughout history.

And it is Evolution.

I outlined the major one -- differing characteristics among humans and the probable triggers for them -- in my post to steen, which he of course absolutely refused to accept because it doesn't fit his preconceived notions,

Actually, what you claimed was that there were several different species of humans after the time at which you claim that there was a Biblical flood. And THAT clearly is a false claim.

and its against his religion, which is evolution.

Please cease your outright lying about me. My religion is Christianity, your bearing false witness none withstanding.

There's a good reason for that. They aren't evolution.

Yes, it does, your misrepresentation none withstanding. Your claim is flat-out false.

Evolution does not occur.

Your claim is false. And at this point, pathetically so.

Thank you for admitting the obvious. Now, if we can just get you to stop calling it evolution and begin calling it natural selection, because that is what it is.

Natural Selection is part of Evolution, your incessant denial none withstanding.

This is not semantics. These are the facts.

Actually it is semantics and your claims are outright false and thus not factual in any way.

Only evolutionists play semantic games, because they desperately need there to be an answer other than the God they claim doesn't exist.

Another outright lie. Once again you violate forum rules blatantly by claiming that some people are not Christians, namely "evolutionists."

If it dies, how is it "more fittingly" adapted to its environment? Seems to me "dead" is a decidedly negative vote against the mutation that killed it.

Which leaves the population more fit. yes, classic Evolution, classic Natural Selection.

What you did here was again restate what I said in a tome more poli-scientifically more palatable to you, calling my statement a canard. Do you see the irony there?

Actually, Gluadys did not such thing. Your claim is false.

Obviously, you didn't read far enough into the article. Go back and try again. The beaks change with the amount of rain in a given year, not by genetic encoding.

Your claim is false. What the article stated was this:

"During dry years larger beak size is selected for, while during wet years the beak size is more varied"

This means that in dry years only finches with large beaks survive, while in wet years finches with smaller beaks also survive. The beaks themselves are not changing. And it very much is an example of Evolution and Natural Selection.

Perhaps you should start actually reading the evidence you provide? In any way, your claim is false.

Moreover, all 13 finch varieties (an aside: most modern scientists say the only reason their still called "Darwin's finches" is because the great evolution visionary called them finches, but they are actually larks and sparrows)

Larks and sparrows, eh? Funny how you forgot to provide your scientific source for this claim. Did you "forget"?

display the beak variations, not just a couple of the varieties as Darwin initially reported.

Of course they would. In years of environmental stress, only the best adapted survive.

There are none. No one can show any, because they do not exist.

Examples were provided. You are now outright lying.

Claiming evolution happens is as ludicrous as claiming UFO's are from Mars -- or any other planet.

Your claim is false.

 

[IisJustMe]

Sure, you can find all sorts of web sites created by purveyors of the evolutionary theory on speciation, natural selection, the alleged (but incorrectly assumed) similarities between human genomes and any number of other species, all carefully worded and supposedly "proving" the theory. You can find all sorts of web sites created by creationists debunking each of those viewpoints. The discussion will go on until Jesus returns and He settles the whole issue, I'm sure.

It comes down to what one believes. It is all a matter of faith. I choose to put my faith in the God of the Bible. You choose to believe in a theory that allows for death, suffering, evil and injustice prior to sin entering into a creation you attribute to God. Everything the Bible says about God shows that God tolerates nothing but perfection, and that the only thing that brings about imperfection in His creation is man's sin.

Sin entered into the creation with Adam. You insist there is a history of this world prior to Adam. As the above paragraph explains, that is impossible.

Just as you allege to have shown me evidence after evidence for evolution, I have shown you evidence after evidence (as have others long before my arrival on this board) of the literal six-day creation, the Flood, etc.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

It comes down to what one believes. It is all a matter of faith.

This is one of the big and crucial points in the creation-evolution-design debate. One of the worst things about modern Western Christianity is it's fundamental anti-intellectualism where it aligns faith against reason, supposing them to be different things. Faith is based in or on reason, true Christian faith is not irrational nor contrary to reason but exceeds reasons grasp and eventually distinguishes between the magisterial and ministerial uses of reason. True faith is based in this real world, it is not contrary to the best efforts of science but again exceeds science grasp, for science can not transcend what it can see and touch and measure.

The rise of fundamentalism, the rise of charsematic movements and the rise of anti-intellectualism in the church are all related to this greatly mistaken notion that the faith is basically irrational, and furthermore that the more irrational it is, the more faith you exercise because you are using eyes of faith rather than relying on your physical eyes.

It is not simply a matter of competing faiths, it is more than that, it is a mistaken notion of what faith is and how it operates in God's world of common grace and providental care.

 

[GraceInHim]

Mod Hat ON

Please post within the Rules of CF

LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF

Matthew 22:39

"And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Mod Hat OFF

 

[shernren]

You choose to believe in a theory that allows for death, suffering, evil and injustice prior to sin entering into a creation you attribute to God. Everything the Bible says about God shows that God tolerates nothing but perfection, and that the only thing that brings about imperfection in His creation is man's sin.

I was wondering when you'd get around to saying this.

Now show me where in the Bible God abhors animal death, says that it is imperfection, and states that He would never have animals die in a perfect world or before the Fall. For bonus marks, you might want to explain how ecological cycles can function if the populational equilibria involved are static equilibria instead of dynamic ones.

You're a rational and thoughtful creationist (not that others aren't), and you've had many reasonable answers and defenses thus far. But as far as I've ever seen, a creationist resorting to "Animal death is sick and disgusting!" is relying more on sentimentalism than Scripture to determine what pleases God in His creation and what doesn't. Prove me wrong.

 

[Mallon]

But as far as I've ever seen, a creationist resorting to "Animal death is sick and disgusting!" is relying more on sentimentalism than Scripture to determine what pleases God in His creation and what doesn't. Prove me wrong.

It's also tantamount to denying the Bible's teachings about our relation to God and the world. Let me quote Christian biologist David Snoke:

The Bible stands against this behavior. Starting with Genesis 1, the Bible creates a clear distinction between people and animals. People have the image of God (1:27) and have dominion over all the plants and animals (1:28). This separateness includes the hope of eternal physical life. In Genesis 2, Adam and Eve are given the Tree of Life which they may eat of and live forever; in the New Testament, those who are in Christ are promised a new eternal
body (1 Cor. 15:35–44)...​

No animals ate of the Tree of Life. Why should we assume, then, that they had eternal life? If death was natural for Adam and Eve, if they did not eat of the Tree, then why should it not be natural for animals? This is then the curse on humankind—to be denied the Tree and treated just like the animals. Psalm 49 makes this explicit: “Man, despite his riches, does not endure; he is like the beasts that perish” (49:12) and “A man who has riches without

understanding is like the beasts that perish” (49:20). People were not meant to die, because God ordained a special role for people. People have eternal spirits; animals do not. Our reaction against animal death, then, comes from imagining ourselves in their place and feeling that for​

​

us, death and suffering like that would be a great evil.


We know in our hearts that we were meant for something more. Death and suffering are “futility,” and while futility is natural for animals, we revolt against it. As 1 Corinthians 15 teaches, death is an “enemy” (15:26) to be vanquished when we gain new, glorified bodies. This is the message of Ecclesiastes. We see that we are subject to death and suffering, but we cannot live with the idea of being just like the animals in this way. Ecclesiastes 3:10–11 says:
​

I have seen the burden God has laid on men. He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.

We are trapped in time, but we know that we belong to eternity,
and wish for eternal life. Eccles. 5:16 says: “This too is a grievous evil: As a man comes, so he departs, and what does he gain, since he toils for the wind?”
But animals do not have eternity in their hearts. Is it therefore a great evil if they die? The Bible does not say it is evil if animals die; it says it is a great evil if people die like the animals.
We may not like animal death and suffering, but the fact is that the Bible does not say anywhere that such things are bad, in and of themselves. If animals do not have eternal life, then their deaths are no more significant than the breaking apart of a rock or the evaporation of a pool of water. A rock can give praise to God in its existence, and so can an animal, as a beautiful thing, but neither was meant to last forever.​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

I would love to see this refuted.​

 

[shernren]

Looking at the material you quoted makes me feel like my post was just a spam.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Mallon again.

 

[IisJustMe]

But as far as I've ever seen, a creationist resorting to "Animal death is sick and disgusting!" is relying more on sentimentalism than Scripture to determine what pleases God in His creation and what doesn't. Prove me wrong.

I simply implied that it is not God's will. His creation was perfect before sin entered into it. His plan had always accounted for that eventuality, so its not as though it was a surprise to Him. But His intent was not for death and sin be part of His creation. He never intended for meat to be food for man or animal (though as a huge fan of Kansas City strip steak, I can't say I regret that changed -- LOL) as evidenced in Genesis 1:29, 30:

Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so.

Further, He says through the prophet Isaiah that such will again be the case, and those animals now part of the food chain will lie down together and both eat grass:

And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, And the leopard will lie down with the young goat, And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a little boy will lead them. (Isaiah 11:6)
"The wolf and the lamb will graze together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox; and dust will be the serpent's food. They will do no evil or harm in all My holy mountain," says the LORD. (Isaiah 65:25)

The latter verse stating "they will do no evil or harm in all My holy mountain" seems to indicate not just to man, but to one another as well, which kind of applies to your last question at the end of the post.

Now show me where in the Bible God abhors animal death, says that it is imperfection, and states that He would never have animals die in a perfect world or before the Fall.

The fact that God did not originally intend for animal to eat animal would to me imply, if not state outrightly, that God did not desire the death of animals. Returning to Isaiah ...

The LORD of hosts will prepare a lavish banquet for all peoples on this mountain; A banquet of aged wine, choice pieces with marrow, And refined, aged wine. And on this mountain He will swallow up the covering which is over all peoples, Even the veil which is stretched over all nations. He will swallow up death for all time, And the Lord GOD will wipe tears away from all faces, And He will remove the reproach of His people from all the earth; For the LORD has spoken. (Isaiah 25:6-8)

The word "nations" is the Hebrew goym which should be recognizable to anyone who has even a remote acquaintence with Yiddish as part of the term for non-Jewish peoples. But a little-known aspect of the word (Strong's #1471) is that it can also mean a collection of animals, locust or other groups of non-human lifeforms. God says He will "swallow up the veil stretched over all nations" meaning He will remove the curse of sin ("remove the reproach of the His people") from the earth for all time, putting an end to death (v. 8) which is a state that applies to everything living, not just human, in the Hebrew idiom. This is a return of the world and the universe to the state in which God created it, how it was intended to be.

For bonus marks, you might want to explain how ecological cycles can function if the populational equilibria involved are static equilibria instead of dynamic ones.

As humans living in the Thousand Year Reign will not even be confronted with making a decision for Christ until their 100th year, and there is no mention of death for those who make that decision correctly, I have to assume (which is not a scientific approach at all, but one works with the evidence available) that the animals will also enjoy long life and plentiful food, water, and shelter. Since the Bible is concerned with the human state, and not the animal, Isaiah and others didn't see fit to tell us what the ecological state of being for the animals of the earth would be.

 

[Mallon]

I simply implied that it is not God's will. His creation was perfect before sin entered into it.

Actually, it was just "good."

 

[shernren]

On the one hand, creationist lambast evolutionists for making animal death a part of the pre-Fall world. On the other hand, they make jokes like this:

(though as a huge fan of Kansas City strip steak, I can't say I regret that changed -- LOL)

Isn't doing something God never intended for creation to do sin?

I'm not judging you, mind you - I'm just drawing conclusions from what you yourself have said:

But His intent was not for death and sin be part of His creation. He never intended for meat to be food for man or animal

(emphasis added)

unless you're using the word "intent" in some strange way I've never heard of before.

It's late here, so I won't get into a proper reply as yet. But this is an obvious contradiction in what you're trying to say.

 

[IisJustMe]

Actually, it was just "good."

If not perfect, what is it? And if God does not do all things perfectly, how can He be God?

Also, it was "very good" (Genesis 1:31) and it was God who called it such. "Very" (Heb. me`od) is exceedingly abundantly, above all else (Strong's #3966) so it would seem it was perfect, if one considered it carefully.

 

[Mallon]

If not perfect, what is it? And if God does not do all things perfectly, how can He be God?

You are equating a perfect God with a perfect creation, which is a mistake. God takes credit for creating all sorts of imperfect creatures in the Bible. Take Job 39, for example. God takes credit for the birth pangs of wild goats (v. 3), for the stupid ostrich (v. 16,17), and for blood-drinking eagle infants (v. 30)! God isn't ashamed of His creation, so why should we be? Our Lord even takes credit for creating evil (or "disaster", depending on your translation) in Isaiah 45:6-7!

Also, it was "very good" (Genesis 1:31) and it was God who called it such. "Very" (Heb. me`od) is exceedingly abundantly, above all else (Strong's #3966) so it would seem it was perfect, if one considered it carefully.

Sure, so we have "very good" in Gen 1:31. And we have just "good" in Gen 1:4,10,12,18,21, and 25. Either way, it doesn't say "perfect". And I'm sure you will be among the first to insist that we read our Bibles "literally" and "take God at His word", right?

 

[CCWoody]

Mod Hat!

closing thread.

Mod Hat off!​

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.​