Evolution happens

[Astrid]

Intelligent design took place the first 6 days of creation then it was completed.

Is that a theory?

 

[Astrid]

A genetic mutation that was unsuccessful at sustaining long term life and reproduction.

Unique new term but theres fatal mutations, and evolutionstpry dead ends.
Everyone knows that.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Please ...

Please what?

 

[AV1611VET]

Intelligent design took place the first 6 days of creation then it was completed.

You don't think maybe Satan tried to replicate what God did?

Isaiah 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

 

[Astrid]

With your constant comments and criticisms like this, why is it that you feel so compelled to call everyone else childish? All I’ve done is ask simple questions and make simple statements about the topic and you constantly reply with these immature remarks.

I dont. I did call equivocation games childish.
What would you call it.
And i dont just offer quips.
Thats someone on your team.

Your posts about evolution very clearly demonstrate
little knowledge of the subject, very far from sufficient
for a reasoned decision to accept or reject the theory.

The objections you bring up are typical of creationist site
nonsense regardless of where you got them- common sense
included. Common sense is no substitute for study that would
have long since saved you asking questions or making statements
that dont actually make sense.

If my personal style doesnt suit you, you can avoid me.
Then too, I can be more careful of your feelings.

Deal?

 

[YeshuaFan]

If you define macroevolution as the amount of evolution we can't observe, then it's certainly true that there's no proof of it. However, the theory is made to fit the evidence, so saying there's no evidence of it doesn't really make sense. This evidence includes such things as relationships in the DNA, trends in the fossil record, and the observed evolutionary process itself.

Nature by itself cannot produce a species change, we can, in a lab setting using genetic materials, but there is no way to change Dna of a species out in the wild!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Oh, come on.

Nobody's going to pull you out of your chosen delusion with any amount of evidence.

The quote proves how common knowledge the fraud of Lucy is. Give it a rest.

There are many things a lot of people think they know that are mistaken, usually based on false rumours and/or misinformation - sometimes deliberate. Lucy was the first of several hundred specimens of Australopithecus discovered since and examined and verified by all the leading palaeontologists of our time. If you want evidence, the bones are viewable, the analyses are viewable, the peer-reviewed published papers are viewable.

If you're interested in how and why the fraud claims were mistaken, there's a good article on it here: Lucy's Knee Joint.

 

[AV1611VET]

.

 

[Astrid]

Nature by itself cannot produce a species change, we can, in a lab setting using genetic materials, but there is no way to change Dna of a species out in the wild!

No way for DNA to change outside a lab?

What do you mean by "species change"?
Its not a term of art in science.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not even your very best Physics lesson could prove evolution fairy tale.

Here's one for ya: Why would a single celled, asexual, organism, that was neat and tidy, and had everything it needed to survive and reproduce, all within a perfect enclosed system, suddenly decide it now needed something hugely vital from another of its kind (that didn't yet exist) and begin the transformation into a much more complex process of sexual interaction for the purpose of its reproduction and survival of its species, and for how many millions of years did it get this wrong and not have the ability to reproduce - stuck somewhere in between - and how could it have possibly survived during the 100's of thousands of limbo years as an organism that needed something from another organism to reproduce, while that other organism hadn't even begun to form yet?

I'm aware the fairy tale parameters demand that it would be one of many that were making this change over an extended period of time, but none of them would have survived that got it wrong, and the ones that came after could not have made further progress from the point of needing that something from another similar organism (which still didn't yet exist), and even if they did, the chances that another organism would be making a similar - but opposite - change at that same time and would get it right, and THEN they would just so happen to come together for a sexual exchange of vital materials - are a googol to one. The mathematical equivalent of ... absolutely impossible.

A lot of the fairy tales that answer questions like these actually assume an inherent intelligence. But you can't borrow from Creationism to flesh out your evolutionary theoretical construction. Evolution is all about randomness. It's only Creationism that is allowed to have intelligence already inside the cells of organisms.

That's how a plant/tree can use very specific and finely tuned scents to call out to specific insects that feed on the insects that are attacking them in order to save themselves. How can a plant possibly know that it needs exactly that - while simultaneously having the very complex inherent intelligence to be capable of speaking the scent language of the specific insect that feeds on the insects that are attacking it? There is only ONE answer. And it is absolutely NOT random evolution. It is God and it is absolutely brilliant intelligent design.

Most Evolutionists don't even consider the impossibilities. They just take it on faith and embrace anything their heroes like Hawking, Dawkins, Einstein, etc. seem to embrace. Yes, faith. Science is a religion as well - don't forget.

No offence intended, but if you take an Evolution 101 course you'll discover how evolution really works and why the ideas in your post are seriously mistaken.

At least if you have a clear understanding of how evolution works you'll be able to raise reasonable criticisms and have them answered. Until then you're just wasting your time arguing against something that isn't the theory of evolution ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Think...]

I fail to see how you can support that.

Simple multicellular colony organisms are an example of a transitional form to colonies with varied specialisation or with environmentally triggered specialisation.

We have examples of the transition of these two stages, so your assertion that the change from single celled to complex is impossible fails.

False.

Non-life doesn't appear into a multi-celled organism in a trillion trillion spontaneous chance scenarios.

Fail.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't play word games. This thread is about Creationism vs Evolution. Abiogenesis is fully in the evolutionism camp. It certainly isn't Creationism.

And the single celled organism example I laid out is 100% in line with what is claimed by them. Regardless of what science chooses to call it.

CK12-Foundation

From the site you linked to:

"Often, people who disagree with the theory of evolution do not really understand it. For example, some people think that the theory of evolution explains how life on Earth first began. In fact, the theory explains only how life changed after it first appeared."​

That site gives a decent summary of evolution, and shows where you're understanding of it is mistaken - particularly the idea that organisms had or needed any intent to evolve.

 

[YeshuaFan]

What do you mean by "species change"?
Its not a term of art in science.

As there even been a cat become a dog?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

As there even been a cat become a dog?

Such a thing would disprove evolution.

Although: foxes. If you've ever seen videos of them, you'd swear it was a cat dressed as a dog.

 

[Think...]

You don't think maybe Satan tried to replicate what God did?

Isaiah 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

You really should pick a side.

God didn't make a fence to sit upon.

At best, you are displaying a luke-warm faith. That makes God pretty angry.

Revelation 3:16

 

[Astrid]

As there even been a cat become a dog?

Of course not. Why do you ask?

Did you learn that science does not do proof? I mentioned that s
some time ago but you did not respond.

 

[Think...]

As there even been a cat become a dog?

According to them, there have been countless cat-dog remains found strewn all throughout history.

Haven't you heard?

 

[Think...]

From the site you linked to:

"Often, people who disagree with the theory of evolution do not really understand it. For example, some people think that the theory of evolution explains how life on Earth first began. In fact, the theory explains only how life changed after it first appeared."​

That site gives a decent summary of evolution, and shows where you're understanding of it is mistaken - particularly the idea that organisms had or needed any intent to evolve.

In other words, your camp has absolutely NO CLUE how life began besides God's Creation. You just tell a story about what happened AFTER the most critical part.

That's about as good as "Once upon a time there was nothing ... THEN IT EXPLODED AND BECAME EVERYTHING!!!"

I made my point very clear. Abiogenesis is a PART of the science that explains how all of life came about. Call it whatever you like, it is the complete opposite of Creationism. And that's what matters in this discussion.

 

[AV1611VET]

You really should pick a side.

I already have:

Intelligent Design can take a hike.

Intelligent Design is a contradiction in terms.

I believe in Creationism, not Intelligent Design.

 

[Think...]

I already have:

The position that you are implying is not technically a Christian position.

It is a deist position. Christ does not support this description of His Creative works:

Intelligent Design adherents believe only that the complexity of the natural world could not have occurred by chance. Some intelligent entity must have created the complexity, they reason, but that “designer” could in theory be anything or anyone.

Creationism vs. Intelligent Design. (slate.com)