Why do YE Creationists insist on a simplistic literal reading of the bible?

[lasthero]

The definition is one of necessity. You say it is a mechanism, tell me how and don't forget to include the biological evidence.

Animals that aren't fit to survive die out. Ones that are fit, survive. Every animal is different in a small way from its parents, and these changes add over time.

It is so simple, explain how it works but don't forget to include the biology that makes it work.

The biology...of the proper definition of theory? What?

I have no preconceived notions. Actually you do. I look at the science and ask, is that possile. You accept by faith alone whatever some evo says. Since you are evidentlay way above me in intellect, tell me what detemines if the offspring has a particular characteristic. Bones for example.

What about bones?

If you nearly flunkded the basics maybe you don't unerstand the basics. You have accepted what you were taught and don't know the basics.

I'm right about the definition of theory. I know, because I looked it up and showed it to you.

And yet there are some with advanced degrees in biology, which makes them smarter than you are, who reject evolution.

And many more who accept it. About 95%.

Well mr. know it all, I am probabaly many years older than your(81)

So?

 

[frogman2x]

Animals that aren't fit to survive die out. Ones that are fit, survive. Every animal is different in a small way from its parents, and these changes add over time

Here is a typical evo comment---these changes add over time. You say it happened but you offer no evidence. Even if it was true the rabbit with the stronger legs ALWAYS produce other rabbits who produce more rabbits etc., and because of the gene pool the stronger legs may not be passed on to the next generation, so htere goes you survival of the fittest argument.

The changes will neve make a rabbit produce anythign oher than another rabbit and you have absolutly no evidence that it can. You have bought a pig in a poke.

What about bones?

Tell me how a lifeform with no bones and no gene for bones produced a kid with bones.

I'm right about the definition of theory. I know, because I looked it up and showed it to you.<<

If you like that definition, fine. Now tell me how a life form with not bones and no gener for bones produced a kid with bones.

And many more who accept it. About 95%.

Are you suggeting tht majority detemines truth?

So?

You made a sinde remark about my age so I an telling you I am not some wet behind ears kid. I also said I have brobably looked at both sides more than you have. You seem to accept by faith alone whatever some evo says but offers no evidence to support it. In my 81 years I have learned that what men say is not always true. If you live that long, and I hope you do, you might find out that my life experience is better than yours right now.

kermit.

 

[lasthero]

Here is a typical evo comment---these changes add over time. You say it happened but you offer no evidence. Even if it was true the rabbit with the stronger legs ALWAYS produce other rabbits who produce more rabbits etc., and because of the gene pool the stronger legs may not be passed on to the next generation, so htere goes you survival of the fittest argument.

It's a matter of statistical fact. Animals with a better chance of surviving are going to survive more often, and therefore be more likely to reproduce. There's nothing to argue.

The changes will neve make a rabbit produce anythign oher than another rabbit and you have absolutly no evidence that it can.

If it did, that would violate everything we know about how evolution works.

Tell me how a lifeform with no bones and no gene for bones produced a kid with bones.

No one ever said that happened. You can look up the evolution of bones, I provided a link in another topic where you asked this question.

Here's a particularly good link on the subject.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3237026/

If you like that definition, fine.

It's not about what I like, it what the word means.

Are you suggeting tht majority detemines truth?

You're the one who brought up scientists who reject evolution like it was some sort of point. If you try hard enough, you can find scientists who support or reject just about anything.

You made a sinde remark about my age so I an telling you I am not some wet behind ears kid.

My apologies. You write and act like one, though.

In my 81 years I have learned that what men say is not always true. If you live that long, and I hope you do, you might find out that my life experience is better than yours right now.

Assuming you are as old as you say you are - and frankly, I'm skeptical - being old doesn't automatically make you wiser than anyone else. The world has more than its fair share of stupid old men.

 

[OllieFranz]

Here is a typical evo comment---these changes add over time. You say it happened but you offer no evidence. Even if it was true the rabbit with the stronger legs ALWAYS produce other rabbits who produce more rabbits etc., and because of the gene pool the stronger legs may not be passed on to the next generation, so htere goes you survival of the fittest argument.

When we bred dogs, we started out with domesticated wolves. They looked like other wolves, but we took the friendliest and bred them and killed any that had reverted to wild wolves. They became more and more domesticated. Then we started breeding them for specific tasks. We bred ratters with other ratters, and not with herders. We bred hunters with other hunters and not with guards, etc. Eventually we wound up with very different and very specific breeds Scots Terriers (ratters), German Shepherds (herders), Russian Wolfhounds (hunters), and Newfoundlands (guards).

Why are you claiming that natural pressures can not perform similar selective breeding. The Great Plains stretch from Hudson Bay to the Gulf of Mexico and from the Appalachian Mountains to the Rockies. At one time the American Buffalo ranged the entire extent. No one animal could roam over the entire extent of the territory, but the various herds, were still all one species. However, the weather is much colder in Minnesota than it is in Oklahoma. A buffalo with a heavier coat could survive a Minnesota winter better. A buffalo with a lighter coat could survive an Oklahoma summer better. Since there would be nothing preventing the occasional mating of a heavier coat male and a lighter coat female (or vice versa), the effects of natural selection would be many generations slower than a deliberate breeding program, but the effects are the same.

The changes will neve make a rabbit produce anythign oher than another rabbit and you have absolutly no evidence that it can. You have bought a pig in a poke.

Ok, let's replace the buffalo with lagomorphs (long-eared "rodents"). Their generations move more quickly, and their herds are tighter groupings, so they developed different "breeds," such as hares, jackrabbits, and rabbits. The are all still lagomorphs, agreed. And evolution never claims otherwise. But when they can no longer interbreed, they become separate species. A rabbit can never give birth to a hare or a jackrabbit. and so on. So while it is true that they will always be lagomorphs, they also became other animals that are different from one another. several "unrelated" species descended from a common ancestor.

In exactly the same way, we are different from the Chimpanzees, but we are still apes. We are different from gibbons, but we are still primates. We are different from....

There are hierarchies, but those hierarchies are nested.

 

[biggles53]

We're arguing an unprovable. All mature trees have growth rings. God created mature trees. Therefore, God created trees with growth rings. True or false? Unprovable. Your contention is even MORE unprovabel. Mature trees have rings. Rings show growth. God created mature trees, therefore the trees DIDN'T have rings. Its only basis is incredulity and your how you think a God you don't believe in would have performed a creation you don't believe happened. If God had in His mind a mature tree in the same formation that we see mature trees today, then absolutely they would have rings just the same as Adam would have his adult teeth.

And I guess he would have also been 'created' with a navel as well, to show evidence of the mother to whom he was never attached...??

Nothing I've said indicates that.

I didn't have much luck Googling a study, but there are many articles which confirm that trees and plants can live underwater for a long period of time. I guess if three men can stand in the middle of a furnace, then if it suits God's purpose trees can live underwater for a year. Nobody ever said ALL trees lived. Many, probably most, were uprooted and died. We have found evidence of this. Floods don't kill trees. Lack of oxygen can kill them. However, with an intact root system a tree can be cut down and still regrow.

I'll wager that there aren't any standing trees in the Grand Canyon that predate the flood. However, during runoff the erosion is much greater at the lower elevations than the higher elevations. The olive tree was near a mountain peak. Presumably, in the low areas nothing would be left standing.

I doesn't mean every tree did. Seeds can go dormant and survive. Again, you are assuming that natural forces would trump the intentions of the Creator. God has no such limitations.

What a crack-up...! That is the most ham-fisted explanation of how trees live ad grow....and then, as a fail-safe, we resort to the Argument from Ignorance strategy of suggesting that your god throw in a little magic, just to make things all work out...! I'm not sure whether that should be regarded as intellectual dishonesty or just plain laziness...

Gravity can be observed. The experiments intending to prove evolution only proved it doesn't happen.

Evolution is also observed. The theory acts as an explanation of what we observe. Gravity can also be observed and it's theory also offers an explanation as to why it happens the way we observe it. You won't like this, but the explanation offered by evolutionary theory is actually more robust and is backed by more evidentiary sources than is gravitational theory...

Each change results in a loss, not gain, of information. Repeated subtraction never equals addition. Devolution would more closely follow natural order than evolution.

This is so demonstrably wrong that I cannot believe there are people still trying to erect it. Do yourself a favour.....stop listening to your pastor for 5 minutes and go and educate yourself on the basics of genetics....

 

[frogman2x]

When we bred dogs, we started out with domesticated wolves. They looked like other wolves, but we took the friendliest and bred them and killed any that had reverted to wild wolves. They became more and more domesticated. Then we started breeding them for specific tasks. We bred ratters with other ratters, and not with herders. We bred hunters with other hunters and not with guards, etc. Eventually we wound up with very different and very specific breeds Scots Terriers (ratters), German Shepherds (herders), Russian Wolfhounds (hunters), and Newfoundlands (guards).<<

Did you ever get anything than another "kind" of dog? All you have done is express what happens when dogs breed.

Why are you claiming that natural pressures can not perform similar selective breeding.

I am not, your can, but you never got something other than a dog. Thatg is not evolution.

The Great Plains stretch from Hudson Bay to the Gulf of Mexico and from the Appalachian Mountains to the Rockies. At one time the American Buffalo ranged the entire extent. No one animal could roam over the entire extent of the territory, but the various herds, were still all one species. However, the weather is much colder in Minnesota than it is in Oklahoma. A buffalo with a heavier coat could survive a Minnesota winter better. A buffalo with a lighter coat could survive an Oklahoma summer better. Since there would be nothing preventing the occasional mating of a heavier coat male and a lighter coat female (or vice versa), the effects of natural selection would be many generations slower than a deliberate breeding program, but the effects are the same.

Of course but they never became anything other than a buffalo and they never produed anthing other than another buffalo. Where is the evolution.

Ok, let's replace the buffalo with lagomorphs (long-eared "rodents"). Their generations move more quickly, and their herds are tighter groupings, so they developed different "breeds," such as hares, jackrabbits, and rabbits. The are all still lagomorphs, agreed. And evolution never claims otherwise. But when they can no longer interbreed, they become separate species.

The did not. The became another vairety. Were they ever called something otgher tna a rabbit?

A rabbit can never give birth to a hare or a jackrabbit. and so on.

I will take your word for it. Allthat means is the rabbits, hares and jackrabbits are different "kinds"

So while it is true that they will always be lagomorphs, they also became other animals that are different from one another. several "unrelated" species descended from a common ancestor.

Here is my complaint. You said it happened but have not provided the biological evidence that made it possible. Not only that you have no fossil record to show it happened.

In exactly the same way, we are different from the Chimpanzees, but we are still apes. We are different from gibbons, but we are still primates. We are different from....<<

Again you have just said it happend, declared we are apes but have not produce the biological evidence to show HOW IT HAPPENED. I fman was an ape, he couuld mate with an ape and producue apes.

There are hierarchies, but those hierarchies are nested.

What ever that means.

kermit

 

[frogman2x]

Animals that aren't fit to survive die out. Ones that are fit, survive. Every animal is different in a small way from its parents, and these changes add over time.

Of course but they NEVER become anything other than what they started out as and the NEVER produce anything other than what they are.

kermit

 

[lasthero]

Of course but they NEVER become anything other than what they started out as and the NEVER produce anything other than what they are.

kermit

No one ever said they do.

 

[frogman2x]

It's a matter of statistical fact. Animals with a better chance of surviving are going to survive more often, and therefore be more likely to reproduce. There's nothing to argue.

I am not arguing with that. They might survive longer but hey will survive as sthe exacd same thing the species starte out as. Not only that, because of the gene pool of the parents, the kid might not get the better trait

If it did, that would violate everything we know about how evolution works

The how can you account for all of the variety we have today? AT some point an A must become a B. That is how evolution says it works.

No one ever said that happened. You can look up the evolution of bones, I provided a link in another topic where you asked this question.

Yes they do say it happened at some point or no animal today would have bones.

Here's a particularly good link on the subject.

Where did bone come from?

Without even looking I can tell you thiny will not offer the biological evidence that will cause it to happen.

You're the one who brought up scientists who reject evolution like it was some sort of point.

It is a valid point. Those who reject evolution have PhDs in their field, most have taught in major universities and some have done research for secular companies.

If you try hard enough, you can find scientists who support or reject just about anything.

That's right.

My apologies. You write and act like one, though.

I don't reject anything that can be proven. It is foolish to accept what ohers says but do not provide the evidence for wht they say.

Assuming you are as old as you say you are - and frankly, I'm skeptical -

Are you calling me a liar? What in the world makes you skeptical?

being old doesn't automatically make you wiser than anyone else. The world has more than its fair share of stupid old men.

I have not claimed I am wiser than anyone, but you should know that the world also has more than its fair share of stupid young men and stupid middle aged men.

kermit

 

[lasthero]

Without even looking I can tell you thiny will not offer the biological evidence that will cause it to happen.

If you're not even going to look at evidence before calling it wrong, there's no chance of a mature conversation. Act your age.

 

[frogman2x]

No one ever said they do.

Of course they do. If they don't, there can be no evolution.

Gringrich said a dog-like animal became a whale.

Do you believe that?

kermit

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course but they NEVER become anything other than what they started out as and the NEVER produce anything other than what they are.

kermit

You seem to misunderstand evolution. No creature every produces anything other than what they are. The offspring of animals could always mate with its close forerunners. You seem to forget that evolution is a gradual process.

You are arguing in the same way that someone could argue that a person 70 years old could never have been two since the differences are so extreme.

The change in species over time is very similar to the change of a person over time. The end product may look nothing like the initial product.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course they do. If they don't, there can be no evolution.

Gringrich said a dog-like animal became a whale.

Do you believe that?

kermit

No, the offspring of a dog-like animal eventually were whales.

Individuals do not evolved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

]In exactly the same way, we are different from the Chimpanzees, but we are still apes. We are different from gibbons, but we are still primates. We are different from....<<

Again you have just said it happend, declared we are apes but have not produce the biological evidence to show HOW IT HAPPENED. I fman was an ape, he couuld mate with an ape and producue apes.




kermit

We do mate with apes and produce other mates all of the time. Your parents are apes, they produced you. My parents are apes, they produced me.

Now we cannot mate with other SPECIES of apes, but then chimpanzees cannot mate with gorillas, gorillas cannot mate with orangutans. Why do you think we should be able to do something that other apes cannot do?

 

[OllieFranz]

I will take your word for it. Allthat means is the rabbits, hares and jackrabbits are different "kinds"

Here is my complaint. You said it happened but have not provided the biological evidence that made it possible. Not only that you have no fossil record to show it happened.

We have shown you the fossil record many times, but you refuse to believe it. But we don't need the fossil record. we can see it happening in our own time.

Fifty years ago, there was a species of bird, the Greenish Warbler, that was spread out over most of Siberia. It was a single species, albeit a ring species. This means that although if you take a male from one flock and a female from another, distant flock, they probably will not be able to mate. But if you try to mate birds from nearby flocks, they can mate easily all throughout the population, so theoretically it would be possible to mongrelize the flocks until all could interbreed again.

But in the last fifty years there has been a lot of urbanization in Siberia and large sections of Warbler habitat has been lost, and with it the flocks from those habitats. In some cases that isolates other flocks, and there is no longer a "bridge" from them to the main group of flocks. There are no flocks in the main group with which they can interbreed. They are a separate population and as the generations pass, the differences between them and the others will only grow.

This is exactly how the lagomorphs split up into rabbits, hares, and jackrabbits. It is how equines split up into horses, donkeys and zebras. It is how panthers split up into lions, tigers and leopards. And it is how African Apes split up into gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans. Yes, the Greenish Warblers are all still Greenish Warblers, even the isolated flocks. But then the lagomorphs are all still lagomorphs. The equines are all still equines. The panthers are all still panthers, and the apes (including humans) are all still apes.

 

[Loudmouth]

Of course but they NEVER become anything other than what they started out as and the NEVER produce anything other than what they are.

Then how were wolves able to produce chihuahuas? Wolves are not chihuahuas, and chihuahuas are not wolves.

 

[EternalDragon]

You seem to misunderstand evolution. No creature every produces anything other than what they are. The offspring of animals could always mate with its close forerunners. You seem to forget that evolution is a gradual process.

You are arguing in the same way that someone could argue that a person 70 years old could never have been two since the differences are so extreme.

The change in species over time is very similar to the change of a person over time. The end product may look nothing like the initial product.

I think the argument is that no one has ever observed this to happen. Your gradual evolution only exists on paper.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think the argument is that no one has ever observed this to happen. Your gradual evolution only exists on paper.

No, we have observed small changes happen with every generation. In fact we can even measure the rate of those changes your genome has roughly 150 mutations from the genome supplied by your parents.

To deny that we have not seen the small changes is obviously false. To say that we have not observed major changes is false too.

Why do you keep making laughable mistakes?

 

[OllieFranz]

I think the argument is that no one has ever observed this to happen. Your gradual evolution only exists on paper.

I'd be very interested in how you explain away current examples of "gradual evolution" (speciation-in-progress):
1) ring species, (Arctic gulls or Greenish Warblers)
2) and closely related but separate species which can (barely) hybridize, like equines (horses, donkeys, zebras) and panthers (tigers, lions, leopards).

 

[Split Rock]

I think the argument is that no one has ever observed this to happen. Your gradual evolution only exists on paper.

We see the gradual stuff all the time, like the Greenish Warbler example. When we show you that, you guys demand to see a lizard give birth to a bird.