is it consistant or hypicritical to one's faith to believe that one exists but not th

[notto]

and who makes up these populations---individuals. obviously it is future generations that do the changing but guess what, it is the indiviual that changes first thenthe population.

No, the individual NEVER CHANGES. That is the point. Individuals die with the genetics they are born with. Until you understand this simple point, your statement here and your earlier one about the supposed 'problems' with evolutionary theory are based on nothing more than your own lack of knowledge. That's no way to go through life.

You really need to read a book. You are still getting it wrong and yet here you are, accusing evolutionists of playing games?

You clearly have know idea what evolution is and don't care to.

That is your game.

Fellow creationists - take note. You should take with a grain of salt anything this poster says about evolution because they clearly do not know what they are talking about or addressing.

I hope you will see this as a model of how NOT to engage in this discussion. Do some research, ask questions, but don't make statements based on your own misinformation and act like it is the other side that has a problem. It just makes you look bad.

 

[kagol]

If a wolf can evolve into all the species of dog we see today in the last 10,000 years, or worse 4,000 if the flood were true, why can't something like a chimp evolve into a human over 6 million years? It's been proven that with the current rate of mutation 6 million years is more than enough time to cover the genetic differences between us and chimps.



What is a different animal type? Is eusthenopteron a different type from osteolepis? Panderichthys and eusthenopteron? Tiktaalik and panderichthys? Ancanthostega and tiktaalik? Ichthyostega and ancanthostega?

The lines between "kinds" are clearly blurred, if existant at all.

This sounds more like a form of Lamarckian evolution, something long since falsified. If this were true we should be observing this adaptation directly, in individuals as well as populations. Having entire colonies of bacteria die out, and one surviving because it had the right genes hardly shows that the DNA, or the mechanisms to modify it based on experience, were there from the start.

I came here to have civil discussion and learn some stuff. I find the whole 'tone' of your response (if one can ascribe tone to text) sarcastic and condescending. I'm sure it is obvious that I do not have the knowledge in areas of this subject that you do and I never claimed that I did. When I posted my view I did it in a plain and simple way that did not contain scientific arguement. I have no problem being disagreed with whatsoever.

I am sure there are subjects in which I could throw words at you knowing that you wouldn't have a clue to what they refered. But I don't consider that that would lead to informative exchange or debate.

I have never previously heard this term. Having now read up on it, I do not agree that that was what I was saying at all. I didn't say adapted changes during the lifetime. I did say adaptation through natural selection,

natural selection being part of this, interbreeding another.

From what I understand this is totally different.


I did not use the word 'kind' on purpose as I know it is still open to debate as to what a 'kind' is.

They don't mutate into a different animal type

I apologise if I used another word that means something specific to you and caused you a problem. Perhaps 'sort' would be nore acceptable.

In case you hadn't guessed, I don't believe that there has been 6 million years. I believe in a young earth and a literal 6 day creation.

 

[archaeologist]

No, the individual NEVER CHANGES. That is the point. Individuals die with the genetics they are born with.

semantics and misrepresentation. the individual has to change or there is simply no evolution. if you read my post you would see i made the distinction between present and future.

You really need to read a book. You are still getting it wrong and yet here you are, accusing evolutionists of playing games?

You clearly have know idea what evolution is and don't care to.

insult ignored.

by your resorting to such remarks it just demonstrates the quality of your character and undermines anything you say.

evolutionists play mind games and this is one of them. populations cannot change unless individuals change over time or generations.

Fellow creationists - take note. You should take with a grain of salt anything this poster says about evolution because they clearly do not know what they are talking about or addressing.

such comments again show that i have hit a nerve and that evolutionists are desperate to hide critical thinking from the masses.

their first defense is always--'you do not know or understand evolution' but that is false as people do see evolution for what it is--false, non-existant, deceiving and not of God; despite the proclamations, manipulations, mis-representations, circular reasoning of those who support that theory.

when evolution is closely scrutinized, one sees the soft under belly, the leaps of faith and logic, the suspension of intelligent thinking, the assumptions and conjecture, the declared evidence which cannot prove the existence of evolution or natural selection, nor show that evolution was actually responsible for developement of life.

all evolutionists have are excuses and empty theories.

 

[KerrMetric]

semantics and misrepresentation. the individual has to change or there is simply no evolution..

How can the individual change? Your genome is basically unchanged from conception until death.

 

[archaeologist]

How can the individual change? Your genome is basically unchanged from conception until death

there you go--no evolution.


this population idea of evolutionists is just a mind game meant to confuse those who have no grasp of scientific or logical thought.

it also plays upon those who have one idea what the word 'individual' means while evolutionists use another meaning of the same word.

this type of mind game is used by evolutionists as they are desperate to proclaim what they have spent their life working on as true and do not want to see such work declared false.

too late, it is false and a lot of work and time has been wasted.

 

[notto]

semantics and misrepresentation. the individual has to change or there is simply no evolution.

And individual dies with the genetics they are born with.

Your example was a gross distortion of evolutionary theory brought on by what I can only supposed is a gross misunderstanding of the theory.

Whatever it is you are talking about, it is not the theory of evolution.

Can you explain in your own words the mechanisms that bring out population change in the theory of evolution

Whether you think the theory is right or wrong, you need to at least demonstrate that you know what it is.

From your statements here, it seems like you really don't know the details (yet you suggest that is where the flaws are).

You are a great creationist.

 

[notto]

this population idea of evolutionists is just a mind game meant to confuse those who have no grasp of scientific or logical thought.

No, it is a concept at the foundation of over 150 years of studies on the diversity of species and populations under selective pressure acting on difference in the populations.

Do you have a grasp of scientific or logical thought?

If so, describe in your own words the mechanisms at the heart of the theory of evolution and how they are proposed to act on individuals and populations.

Regardless of if you agree with the theory, you should be able to demonstrate a base knowledge of it.

Otherwise, your dismissal of it is not based on scientific or logical thought, is it.

 

[KerrMetric]

there you go--no evolution.


this population idea of evolutionists is just a mind game meant to confuse those who have no grasp of scientific or logical thought.

it also plays upon those who have one idea what the word 'individual' means while evolutionists use another meaning of the same word.

this type of mind game is used by evolutionists as they are desperate to proclaim what they have spent their life working on as true and do not want to see such work declared false.

too late, it is false and a lot of work and time has been wasted.

You're just embarrassing yourself now. It really is starting to look like you are performing a parody of a Creationist.

 

[kagol]

Well, that's not the definition the rest of the world uses. You are free to invent your own language, but I don't see why you would want to do that.

What you describe does not happen in nature, nor does evolution say it does. Allow me to explain.

I'm sure you have heard of the term "tree of life". Well, this is a better analogy than one might think. Imagine an oaktree. Each branch can divide into smaller branches into smaller and smaller subgroups of branches, until we reach a leaf. But nowhere - absolutely nowhere - on the tree does one branch connect to another. Two branches can have the same parent branch, but once a branch has diverged its child branches can never "remerge", so to speak.

An similarily, evolution never makes a population go from one family to another. A mammal population will never evolve to become reptiles. However, mammals and reptiles have the same origin - the same parent branch. They were connected at one point, but they will never connect again. Yet this is what many creationists demand from evolution, which demonstrates their lack of understanding of the subject.


Then why do lifeforms who can't survive in the conditions they find themselves overcome their difficulties? You are saying God did not intend for things to happen that are observed every time something dies. Is your God inept?


You are right, and I won't. I will, however, ask that you provide a test with which I can reliably falsify God if He didn't exist. I will do the same with evolution, in the spirit of good will:
If you can show that a naturally occurring biological feature could not have risen through small changes in the genetic code over time, evolution is false.

If you cannot provide a test that can falsify your hypothesis, it holds no practical truth value and is therefore essentially useless as a statement about our reality. It becomes a question of philosophy, not science.

Yes, but since your hypothesis is both unfalsifiable and unable to make any actual predictions, it is useless and impossible to draw any conclusions from it.

Thank you for your response.

I wasn't trying to invent a new language, I was just explaing how I understood it. I have read definitions that explain it like that. I stand corrected.

Although I appreciate this analogy, it still does not swing it for me.
Yes the branch devides from the parent branch and there may be differences between the two smaller branches. However they are still both oak branches. This is the way I see it with any lifeform.
Allopatric speciation as shown in the fruit fly, sure it shows speciation but what did they end up with? Fruit flies. This holds for all other methods of speciation.

Now the leap from speciation as above to evolution from a common ancestor is huge.

No I can't do that, but isn't that the problem we both have? There is no difinetive test for either side. If there was wouldn't we all be huggung each other in church, or not and there would be no debate.
The only thing I can say to that at this moment is; from subatomic on up, as far as I observe, there is design. The watchmaker!!

As incredible as you find my way of seeing things, I find yours just as incredible. I cannot understand how if I showed you my precision timepiece and told you that a long, long time ago all the individual elements etc. that were necessary for it's existence had come together in one place and that recently I had looked in the bucket and it had put itself toghether into the form it is now. You would count me as crazy and laugh in my face. And yet you can look at the whole of existence and say that's how it happened.

I think maybe we are speciations apart!! Ya think?

 

[gluadys]

Although I appreciate this analogy, it still does not swing it for me.
Yes the branch devides from the parent branch and there may be differences between the two smaller branches. However they are still both oak branches. This is the way I see it with any lifeform.
Allopatric speciation as shown in the fruit fly, sure it shows speciation but what did they end up with? Fruit flies. This holds for all other methods of speciation.

Now the leap from speciation as above to evolution from a common ancestor is huge.

Excuse me for butting in, but I would really like some clarification on this. I don't see where you are having the problem.

If you trace the small branches back to parent branches, don't they also come from larger, older parent branches? Don't all the branches eventually derive from one trunk?

What is the difficulty in seeing this applying to the history of evolution as well?

All dogs come from a single dog ancestor. Dogs, wolves and foxes from a single canine ancestor. Canines, ursines and felines from a single carnivorous ancestor. And so on, back to a single mammalian ancestor, a single tetrapod ancestor, a single vertebrate ancestor.


You can see easily that various breeds of dogs can come from one common ancestral dog population. Various species of fruit flies from one parental stock.

What is the big hurdle with seeing larger groups coming from a more remote ancestor? e.g. squirrels and rabbits from an early rodent-like ancestor? or butterflies and ants from a remote common insect ancestor?

I honestly don't understand why people who can see speciation happening in one direction (one species separating into two or more species) in the present, cannot see it in the other direction (two or more species having come from one species in the past.)

Isn't it exactly the same thing? Just in a different time-frame?

 

[archaeologist]

You're just embarrassing yourself now. It really is starting to look like you are performing a parody of a Creationist.

Do you have a grasp of scientific or logical thought

Your example was a gross distortion of evolutionary theory brought on by what I can only supposed is a gross misunderstanding of the theory.

this is the next typical stage of attack. go after the poster, challenge his understandingof science and evolution, using elitest and superiority attitudes.

not only do i understand the theory, i see its weaknesses, its errors and the fact the evil one is behind it and no matter what you say it will never change that fact.

No, it is a concept at the foundation of over 150 years of studies on the diversity of species and populations under selective pressure acting on difference in the populations

wow!!! 150 years of scientific studies. i have between 6-10,000 years of the results of creation behind me and supporting my position. maybe when you catch up you will understand that you have nothing upon which to stand.

Otherwise, your dismissal of it is not based on scientific or logical thought, is it.

my dismissal of it is based on one element you ignore; The Trinity. that trumps you and your scientific thought and allows me to see things you do not comprehend.
it is people like you who elevate science to an authority and position which it is not allowed to have and that is your fatal mistake, as you rely on it before you turn to God.

secular science, evolution and so forth are wrong.

 

[KerrMetric]

this is the next typical stage of attack. go after the poster, challenge his understandingof science and evolution, using elitest and superiority attitudes.

Let's translate:

You're attacking me with superior knowledge, understanding and training and since I don't have a comeback for that I don't like it and I'll make an appeal to typical American anti-intellectualism.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

....

secular science, evolution and so forth are wrong.

I have asked several times what you mean by "secular science" - is it in your mind the practice of science by non-Christians?

 

[Jase]

their first defense is always--'you do not know or understand evolution' but that is false as people do see evolution for what it is--false, non-existant, deceiving and not of God; despite the proclamations, manipulations, mis-representations, circular reasoning of those who support that theory.

Is this why the vast majority of the world, including most Christians fully accept evolution? Because people see it as false and non-existant? It is a fact that you don't have the foggiest clue what evolution is archae. You are just digging yourself in a deeper whole and making Christianity as a whole look like a body of retards. Is that your goal?

when evolution is closely scrutinized, one sees the soft under belly, the leaps of faith and logic, the suspension of intelligent thinking, the assumptions and conjecture, the declared evidence which cannot prove the existence of evolution or natural selection, nor show that evolution was actually responsible for developement of life.

all evolutionists have are excuses and empty theories.

The entire field of biology revolves around the theory of evolution. Evolution is the most well-evidenced scientific theory in existence, even more so than germ theory or gravity. Of course you sound like the type who believes demons cause illness, and angels push objects to the ground.

 

[Impaler]

I came here to have civil discussion and learn some stuff. I find the whole 'tone' of your response (if one can ascribe tone to text) sarcastic and condescending. I'm sure it is obvious that I do not have the knowledge in areas of this subject that you do and I never claimed that I did. When I posted my view I did it in a plain and simple way that did not contain scientific arguement. I have no problem being disagreed with whatsoever.

I'm sorry if I appeared too confrontational but claims against science have to be corrected.

I am sure there are subjects in which I could throw words at you knowing that you wouldn't have a clue to what they refered. But I don't consider that that would lead to informative exchange or debate.

Those are all transitionals between fish and amphibians. They show very little change between each and it would be difficult to determine exactly where the classes start and end.

I have never previously heard this term. Having now read up on it, I do not agree that that was what I was saying at all. I didn't say adapted changes during the lifetime. I did say adaptation through natural selection,

From what I understand this is totally different.

You're claim was the all the necessary changes needed were preprogrammed into the genome of the organisms. This is much more like Lamarckian evolution than Darwinian evolution. Whether it's Lamarckian or Darwinian evolution to you this is also far from what is observed.

I did not use the word 'kind' on purpose as I know it is still open to debate as to what a 'kind' is.

I apologise if I used another word that means something specific to you and caused you a problem. Perhaps 'sort' would be nore acceptable.

None of those terms mean anything specific, and that's what the problem is. It's no help to anyone if there's no definition or testable criteria for each.

In case you hadn't guessed, I don't believe that there has been 6 million years. I believe in a young earth and a literal 6 day creation.

So if there was 6 million years would it be possible for chimps and humans to share a common ancestor?

 

[archaeologist]

You're attacking me with superior knowledge, understanding and training and since I don't have a comeback for that I don't like it and I'll make an appeal to typical American anti-intellectualism.

not at all and how arrogant you are. you do not have superior knowledge or understanding giventhe fact yo usubscribe to a non-existent process which possesses nothing tangible that would allow itself to direct its 'work'.

Is this why the vast majority of the world, including most Christians fully accept evolution

if you look at the recent statistics you would find that that isn't true.

It is a fact that you don't have the foggiest clue what evolution is archae. You are just digging yourself in a deeper whole and making Christianity as a whole look like a body of retards. Is that your goal?

read 1 corinthians 1:18 to 31

i will stick with creation as God said and do as verse 31 says: "let him who boasts boast in the Lord.'

The entire field of biology revolves around the theory of evolution. Evolution is the most well-evidenced scientific theory in existence, even more so than germ theory or gravity. Of course you sound like the type who believes demons cause illness, and angels push objects to the ground.

then the entire field of biology is wrong and going in the wrong direction. those who believe in God are not to listen or follow secular man, even if they 'christianize' the theory, they are to follow God.

None of those terms mean anything specific, and that's what the problem is. It's no help to anyone if there's no definition or testable criteria for each.

science is very limited in knowledge, data, research and so on and if you continue to look to science for your answers then you will be disappointed.

obviously the term means something specific or God wouldn't have used the term or allowed the term to be used. it is a category for all living things or God would not have divided them accordingly.

 

[notto]

this is the next typical stage of attack. go after the poster, challenge his understandingof science and evolution, using elitest and superiority attitudes.

not only do i understand the theory, i see its weaknesses, its errors and the fact the evil one is behind it and no matter what you say it will never change that fact.

Yet you refuse to explain the mechanisms used in your own words and correct your silly statements from above related to them.

You refuse to demonstrate that you actually understand the theory because so far in this thread you haven't said much about it that is correct.

Noted.

 

[archaeologist]

sorry but i am not a seal and i don't bark on command.

since i do not believe evolution exists and is solely a secular construct meant to deceive people, there are no mechanisms to discuss or describe. in studying the theory and the many articles, books and posts people who adhere to it write, itis easy to see where the fill in the blanks with conjecture, inferences cannot provide any tangible proof that evolution actually exists or is responsible for what they say it can do. {throw in natural selection as well}

it is a cleverly designed theory to deceive people and lead them from God and the truth and the best verse i canuse as a warning to those who keep trying to prostlytize and gain converts to the theory of evolution is this:

Matthew 18:6
[ Jesus Warns of Offenses ] “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

that is exactly what evolutionists are doing, getting people to sin by disbelieving God, Jesus and the Bible.

 

[notto]

sorry but i am not a seal and i don't bark on command.

since i do not believe evolution exists and is solely a secular construct meant to deceive people, there are no mechanisms to discuss or describe. in studying the theory and the many articles, books and posts people who adhere to it write, itis easy to see where the fill in the blanks with conjecture, inferences cannot provide any tangible proof that evolution actually exists or is responsible for what they say it can do. {throw in natural selection as well}

Thank you for repeatedly demonstrating my point.

You claim that you understand evolution yet you refuse to answer questions about what it actually is after you repeatedly state things that are an absurd understanding of it.

This shows that you don't know enough about it to dismiss it. Your statements above are a perfect example of that.

So far, the problems with evolution you have brought up are simply things that you have made up in your own head because they are not based on what the theory of evolution actually is. That is called a strawman and doesn't make for a good argument.

Here you are claiming knowledge. Why don't you demonstrate the knowledge. Show us or tell us what you have read and what the problem is with it.

You just keep repeating claims that it is wrong yet you never demonstrate it.

Regardless of if you accept the theory, you should be able to explain it.

Perhaps one of your fellow creationists could explain it to you. Any takers?

You can't (or won't) so we can only conclude that you are dismissing it based on your demonstrated lack of knowledge about it.

You are a great creationist.

 

[KokoTheGorilla2]

Perhaps one of your fellow creationists could explain it to you. Any takers?

Koko taking!

Koko agreeing and supporting with Archie!

Archie come back to Koko forum and Koko protecting!