Creationism V Evolution.

[mkatzwork]

"common evolutionary developments" Calling variation in coli "evolution" does not mean any evolution has taken place.

They showed an organism evolve to take on a major new characteristic, and that was just in the space of 20 years, in ONE experiment. That characteristic (being able to transport citrate through the cell wall) is one of the major things that allows the genus Escherichia to be distinguished from Salmonella.

(if anybody at this juncture suggests that it was evolving into being Salmonella.....)

A bunch more major characteristic additions and changes and you see - one is already beginning to rapidly head towards an entirely new genus, and that in a very short space of time (visible to human lifespan). Now take that process - and make it happen in countless numbers of multiple places, in parallel and sometimes in conjunction, for BILLIONS of years...

Dogs and cats have a lot of variation and that does not prove anything.

It proves there's a lot of variation in what we refer to vaguely as 'dogs' and 'cats', surely. So what? The problem lies in your misunderstanding of what species, genus, and colloquialisms are in terms of referring to animals.

To prove this point - what do you think a dog is?

 

[Split Rock]

I do not see any evidence for evolution. I see a lot of different species and even a lot of extinct species. But no evidence that any of of them evolved into something else.

Clearly the different species adapt to their environment. You have black squirrels and you have brown squirrels. For some people that is evidence for evoluotion. For me it is evidence that squirrels come in different colors. Hamsters come in 40 different colors. Dogs and cats come in a lot of different colors. That is not evidence for evolution for me.

What would be "evidence of evolution" for you?

 

[Norman321]

The problem lies in your misunderstanding of what species, genus, and colloquialisms are in terms of referring to animals.

The last time I heard that, the guy was trying to get me to give him money to join a pyramid marketing plan. He was convinced that anyone that understood what a wonderful opportunity this was, would only be to happy to buy in on it.

You guys don't get it. Maybe I understand to much.
Maybe the problem has nothing to do with me not understanding it good enough.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You guys don't get it. Maybe I understand to much.

 

[mkatzwork]

You crack me up.

Question remains:

What do you a think a 'dog' is?

The last time I heard that, the guy was trying to get me to give him money to join a pyramid marketing plan. He was convinced that anyone that understood what a wonderful opportunity this was, would only be to happy to buy in on it.

You guys don't get it. Maybe I understand to much.
Maybe the problem has nothing to do with me not understanding it good enough.

 

[Guy1]

Maybe the problem has nothing to do with me not understanding it good enough.

I'd join the bandwagon laughing at your arrogance; but I feel like being the bigger man. What does evolution say? In simple terms please.

 

[selfinflikted]

I'd join the bandwagon laughing at your arrogance; but I feel like being the bigger man. What does evolution say? In simple terms please.

A very good question for someone who allegedly understands to [sic] much.

 

[Split Rock]

You crack me up.

Question remains:

What do you a think a 'dog' is?

I would also like to hear an answer to this question.

 

[Norman321]

What would be "evidence of evolution" for you?

Pretty much like your morph software. Even though that is a trick and one does not really change into the other. Like the Cambrian explosion. you would have to have a different fossil at the end of the era compared to the fossils you find at the beginning. As fossil record is, once something appears, it does not change.The bottom line for Christians is that you have 30,000 generations of E Coli. You start with E Coli and in the end you still have E Coli. With the fruit flys, you start with a fruit fly, in the end that is all you have is a fruit fly. So your experments with E Coli and the Fruit flys BOTH show me that micro evolution is true. You clearly have variation and individual species adapting and fine tuning themselves. But there is no evidence for macro evolution. You do not have one species change into another species.

01254 // arb // bara' // baw-raw' //

a primitive root; TWOT - 278; v

AV - create 42, creator 3, choose 2, make 2, cut down 2, dispatch 1,
done 1, make fat 1; 54

1) to create, shape, form
1a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)
1a1) of heaven and earth
1a2) of individual man
1a3) of new conditions and circumstances
1a4) of transformations
1b) (Niphal) to be created
1b1) of heaven and earth
1b2) of birth
1b3) of something new
1b4) of miracles
1c) (Piel)
1c1) to cut down
1c2) to cut out
2) to be fat
2a) (Hiphil) to make yourselves fat

 

[Norman321]

What does evolution say?

Evolution says that all of creation is a result of mistakes and errors.

 

[Norman321]

What do you a think a 'dog' is?

I think a living dog is better than a dead lion.

 

[Guy1]

Evolution says that all of creation is a result of mistakes and errors.

You say these things then you expect me or anyone else to take you seriously? You expect anyone to believe you've studies what it says? You expect anyone to take your ignorant ramblings seriously? You can't even get the basic premises right. How do you expect to argue about anything more complex?

 

[AV1611VET]

You say these things then you expect me or anyone else to take you seriously? You expect anyone to believe you've studies what it says? You expect anyone to take your ignorant ramblings seriously? You can't even get the basic premises right. How do you expect to argue about anything more complex?

He's right.

Evolution says we are mutant copy errors; and theistic evolution says we are mutant copy errors, made in the image and likeness of God.

And while I know what evolution means by 'mutant copy errors,' I think the terminology serves only to ridicule our LORD.

 

[Norman321]

You say these things then you expect me or anyone else to take you seriously?

Au Contraire. I do not expect anything from you. I esp do not expect you to be rational, logical or adhere to reason.

The response I usually get and I have heard this many times. Evolution is guided by natural selection, the mistakes and errors only gives natural selection something to select.

So now it is your turn for you to tell us why we should take you serious.

 

[Guy1]

Au Contraire. I do not expect anything from you. I esp do not expect you to be rational, logical or adhere to reason.

Right. Why expect others to do something you yourself cannot?

The response I usually get and I have heard this many times. Evolution is guided by natural selection, the mistakes and errors only gives natural selection something to select.

Or in even simpler terms: animal X gives birth to slightly different animal X and so on. These differences add up until they make a new species. Throw in natural selection and ta-da. Evolution.

So now it is your turn for you to tell us why we should take you serious.

Because we have 150 years worth of experimental evidence and a series of ludicrously specific predictions made with no prior knowledge which have been tested and confirmed several thousand times over? That might be a good reason.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Evolution says that all of creation is a result of mistakes and errors.

Sorry, incorrect.

I think a living dog is better than a dead lion.

And zero for two. Thanks for playing, though!

Pretty much like your morph software. Even though that is a trick and one does not really change into the other. Like the Cambrian explosion. you would have to have a different fossil at the end of the era compared to the fossils you find at the beginning. As fossil record is, once something appears, it does not change.

Like horses, you mean?

The bottom line for Christians is that you have 30,000 generations of E Coli. You start with E Coli and in the end you still have E Coli. With the fruit flys, you start with a fruit fly, in the end that is all you have is a fruit fly.

Absolutely correct, as true a statement as ever there was. Your point? Do you for some reason believe that evolution says the descendants of fruit flies should become something other than fruit flies? (PROTIP: It doesn't)

So your experments with E Coli and the Fruit flys BOTH show me that micro evolution is true. You clearly have variation and individual species adapting and fine tuning themselves. But there is no evidence for macro evolution. You do not have one species change into another species.

Sorry, wrong again!

 

[RickG]

Evolution says that all of creation is a result of mistakes and errors.

The theory of evolution says no such thing.

Evolution:
"Evolution consists of changes in the heritable traits of a population of organisms as successive generations replace one another. It is populations of organisms that evolve, not individual organisms."

Source: Evolution Resources from the National Academies

 

[Norman321]

Like horses, you mean?

Yep, that is what I would expect. Only it turns out to be a lot more complicated then that. The old theory of horse evolution has been scrapped and replaced with a new one. But it takes time to update text books. So the old falsified theory will be around a while. Also the displays in the museums are not longer accurate, but they will keep them, as it would cost to much to replace them.

One thing you can count on is that the theory itself is going to "evolve" and change over time. As it becomes old, antiquated and obsolete and will need to be replaced with new fresh theorys.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yep, that is what I would expect. Only it turns out to be a lot more complicated then that. The old theory of horse evolution has been scrapped and replaced with a new one.

You mean like science does all the time? You mean that trait of adapting to new evidence and correcting for new data? That trait that gives science its core strength?

But it takes time to update text books. So the old falsified theory will be around a while. Also the displays in the museums are not longer accurate, but they will keep them, as it would cost to much to replace them.

One thing you can count on is that the theory itself is going to "evolve" and change over time. As it becomes old, antiquated and obsolete and will need to be replaced with new fresh theorys.

Yes, that's how science works. You say it like it's a bad thing - priests and politicians promulgated this myth that changing your mind is a bad thing.

 

[USincognito]

The obvious flaw in that OP statement above is that Darwin himself argued that evolutionism is not at all compatible with Christianity.

You've been repeating this for weeks now, I and others have been asking for a citation and yet, you never provide one.

Did you provide it during a day when I was off-line?

Could you provide it again?

Or are you going to keep acting like we're all stupid and/or have no memory of things we've read a day, a week, etc. earlier?