Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[-57]

It would be, if one species amassed enough mutations to transform into an entirely new genetic being. If a fish became a bird, for example. Or a single cell amoeba became a multi-celled plant. Or any transformation had been observed that follows the tree of life pattern where single cells become trees which become people. A bird becoming a different kind of bird is still a bird.

Heck, lets go simpler....the evolution of something like an echo-location system in a dolphin.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

Heck, lets go simpler....the evolution of something like an echo-location system in a dolphin.

A dolphin with or without echo-location is a dolphin.

 

[-57]

But if it's through breeding, then it has no bearing on the theory that new animals mutated from old ones. So, you can call it macroevolution, but it's just the result of animals doing exactly what God created them to do.

Funny how the evo-minded call on a process that doesn't require mutations....and call it macro-evolutionism. Sounds pretty sloppy to me.

 

[Loudmouth]

It would be, if one species amassed enough mutations to transform into an entirely new genetic being. If a fish became a bird, for example.

First, no one has ever claimed that fish became birds.

At what point in this series is there a new genetic being?

Also, please list the criteria you used to determine when there was a "brand new genetic being".

Or a single cell amoeba became a multi-celled plant.

No one has ever claimed that an amoeba became a multi-celled plant.

Or any transformation had been observed that follows the tree of life pattern where single cells become trees which become people.

Australopithecine to modern human would be a good one. Picture above.

A bird becoming a different kind of bird is still a bird.

Humans and birds are both kinds of amniote. Are you saying that humans and birds evolving from a common ancestor is microevolution because I can call humans and birds by the same name? Is creationism nothing more than a name game?

 

[-57]

A dolphin with or without echo-location is a dolphin.

Or changing a fish fin into a leg.

 

[Loudmouth]

A dolphin with or without echo-location is a dolphin.

Chimps and humans are both primates. Primates are still primates.

 

[-57]

First, no one has ever claimed that fish became birds.

At what point in this series is there a new genetic being?

That answer is simple...no where.

 

[Loudmouth]

But if it's through breeding, then it has no bearing on the theory that new animals mutated from old ones.

Why doesn't it have bearing? Human breeding programs work just like natural selection. The interruption of gene flow produces separated populations that build up differences between them until they are no longer able to produce fertile offspring.

So, you can call it macroevolution, but it's just the result of animals doing exactly what God created them to do.

God created them to macroevolve?

 

[Loudmouth]

That answer is simple...no where.

A is a chimp. L is a modern human. Are you saying that chimps and humans are the same kind?

 

[-57]

Amazing ...isn't it?

from this....

They get this...

 

[-57]

A is a chimp. L is a modern human. Are you saying that chimps and humans are the same kind?

Nobody would make that foolish claim.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nobody would make that foolish claim.

You just made that claim. You stated that all of those skulls come from species that are the same kind.

If this isn't so, then show us where in that series there is a separation between kinds, and the criteria you used to make that determination.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

Why doesn't it have bearing? Human breeding programs work just like natural selection. The interruption of gene flow produces separated populations that build up differences between them until they are no longer able to produce fertile offspring.



God created them to macroevolve?

No. God created them to reproduce. People have decided to label it as evidence of a process that disproves God. Just because you call it macroevolution, doesn't make it the kind of evolution that the evolutionary theory was based on.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

That answer is simple...no where.

You can't determine genetics based on pictures.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It would be, if one species amassed enough mutations to transform into an entirely new genetic being. If a fish became a bird, for example. Or a single cell amoeba became a multi-celled plant. Or any transformation had been observed that follows the tree of life pattern where single cells become trees which become people. A bird becoming a different kind of bird is still a bird.

Ah, the old "it's still a bird" routine... a classic.

So you want to see speciation create not a new species, but a whole different phylum? Or in the case of the ameoba--->plant example, a different kingdom?

The point being that if speciation actually produces a different species, that's not good enough for you? Kind of says it right there in the name, don't it?

 

[-57]

Macro-evolutionism.

 

[Loudmouth]

Amazing ...isn't it?

from this....
View attachment 168480

Please stop misrepresenting the facts.

 

[-57]

Please stop misrepresenting the facts.

I forgot to mention plaster of parish, bias and wild imagination.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

Ah, the old "it's still a bird" routine... a classic.

So you want to see speciation create not a new species, but a whole different phylum? Or in the case of the ameoba--->plant example, a different kingdom?

The point being that if speciation actually produces a different species, that's not good enough for you? Kind of says it right there in the name, don't it?

No. Speciation is not good enough. Mostly because it doesn't prove anything. If the evolutionary theory claims all life sprang from a single cell, but the only evidence is processes described in Genesis, then there really isn't any evidence for a single cell to produce every living being.

And since we "can't" observe that because the earth is "billions" of years old, then all we really have is speculation formed by opinions of scientists who don't want to accept the fact that God created the earth. Because the only way to prove He didn't would be to observe living beings well beyond our lifetime. And, conveniently, since they have posed the idea that the earth must be billions of years old, they won't ever have to really produce any evidence anyways.

Even though the idea of a billions old earth came from a misreading of geologic evidence left behind by the flood. Which caused pressure on the earth's surface that give current radiometric dating methods a skewed reading. Especially since a worldwide flood would have screwed with the atmosphere so much that the half-life of carbon would have been wildly different than we observe today, but we have no way of knowing what it used to be. So basing our assumptions about the age of the earth on misread dating "evidence" only gives a convenient excuse to never really have to provide real evidence of the evolutionary theory anyways.

 

[46AND2]

No. Speciation is not good enough. Mostly because it doesn't prove anything. If the evolutionary theory claims all life sprang from a single cell, but the only evidence is processes described in Genesis, then there really isn't any evidence for a single cell to produce every living being.

And since we "can't" observe that because the earth is "billions" of years old, then all we really have is speculation formed by opinions of scientists who don't want to accept the fact that God created the earth. Because the only way to prove He didn't would be to observe living beings well beyond our lifetime. And, conveniently, since they have posed the idea that the earth must be billions of years old, they won't ever have to really produce any evidence anyways.

Even though the idea of a billions old earth came from a misreading of geologic evidence left behind by the flood. Which caused pressure on the earth's surface that give current radiometric dating methods a skewed reading. Especially since a worldwide flood would have screwed with the atmosphere so much that the half-life of carbon would have been wildly different than we observe today, but we have no way of knowing what it used to be. So basing our assumptions about the age of the earth on misread dating "evidence" only gives a convenient excuse to never really have to provide real evidence of the evolutionary theory anyways.

Pressure does not change the rate of radiometric decay. It has been tested in the lab at pressures much higher than would be produced by the flood.

Additionally, meteorites and lunar rocks ALSO date to billions of years, and they were never subjected to the flood at all.