Gasp, he found one! Congratulations Mr. Darwinist. But the fact remains that I did not come across that definition in ANY of the many creation evolution debates I viewed nor in any of the articles or scholarly journals I have read up until the 1990's.
I'm not sure what that proves besides that
you didn't read / Google enough.
Quote: "You will no doubt protest that the slugs are still slugs, but you never defined what amount of speciation would satisfy you."
You are either dishonest or just a poor reader. I said it plainly:
Quote: "Show us even one observable change in allele frequency that produced an entirely different organism in ANY amount of time. NOTE: I said, 'observable'. NOTE: Not a change in one species to another of the same species but a completely different familial change from one type of organism to another."
Do you know what the word 'familial' means?
Hint: Kingdom, phylum, class, order,__________, genus species. You fill in the blank. Does that help?
Hint: Kingdom, phylum, class, order, ______, genus, and what did you say? "Not a change in
one species to another of the same species ... " What I showed you was exactly that, a change in one species to another that was not of the same species but a completely
different species.
Now if a creationist gives me two different possible kinds of change that he will accept (possibly not realizing that they are different), one of which evolution itself permits and the other of which evolution itself does not permit, which do you think I will give him?
There is no evolution "between families" for the simple reason that evolution only happens at the tips of a phylogenetic tree. What does evolution predict can happen?
1. One species can split into two different sub-species.
2. One species can evolve into a notably different daughter species.
3. One species can go extinct.
Note that in each case, what is produced is not a new family; it is a new species. Evolution cannot produce new families simply because anything new which evolves already belonged to some particular species before this and hence already belonged to some particular family before this.
But I know that's not really what you're asking. You're simply asking for the generation of novel features - in which case, I hope you would agree with me that a multicellular life-form would be different enough from a unicellular life-form to fit the bill? You ask:
The fact is that no one in the Darwinian world can reveal a observed change from one type of organism into an identifiably different, genetically different organism. All that happens in nature falls under that law of God which has never changed and never failed...you know...that law that you don't believe in;
'after its kind'?
And you aren't going to see nature violate that law because it is God's law that is final and not Darwins theory.
but you seem to be unaware that ... even
I am an identifiably different, genetically different organism from
you. (That's how paternity tests work.) So please train yourself to write more precisely while you chew on this:
Phagotrophy by a flagellate selects for colonial prey: a possible origin of multicellularity | Mendeley
Abstract:
Predation was a powerful selective force promoting increased morphological complexity in a unicellular prey held in constant environmental conditions. The green alga, Chlorella vulgaris, is a well-studied eukaryote, which has retained its normal unicellular form in cultures in our laboratories for thousands of generations. For the experiments reported here, steady-state unicellular C. vulgaris continuous cultures were inoculated with the predator Ochromonas vallescia, a phagotrophic flagellated protist (`flagellate'). Within less than 100 generations of the prey, a multicellular Chlorella growth form became dominant in the culture (subsequently repeated in other cultures). The prey Chlorella first formed globose clusters of tens to hundreds of cells. After about 10-20 generations in the presence of the phagotroph, eight-celled colonies predominated. These colonies retained the eight-celled form indefinitely in continuous culture and when plated onto agar. These self-replicating, stable colonies were virtually immune to predation by the flagellate, but small enough that each Chlorella cell was exposed directly to the nutrient medium.
Who, pray tell, is D.A. Carson?
Let me google that for you
Good grief! What in the world is the matter with you? You cannot grasp that God Almighty can appear in more than one way at a time? WHO IS THIS LIMITED GOD that you claim to believe in?
God can appear as a man on the throne of heaven and yet appear as the shekinah glory (light) between the cherubims. Can you grasp even that much? I mentioned that he appeared as three men to Abraham. Which of them was God? All of them! Check out the context of Genesis 18 & compare what the two men who went to Sodom did in Genesis 19:24. One could not distinguish which of the three was God in that story but the fact is He was all three. In Jesus, all three were seen in Him. (John 10:30, 14:9, 14:18)
I believe in the omnipotent God of Christianity, but I believe that He has revealed Himself perfectly in Scripture. Again, kirkwhisper, what the KJV actually says is:
"
I beheld ... and in the midst of the elders,
stood a Lamb ... "
The Bible does not say that John saw a Lamb. The Bible does not say that John saw something that looked like a Lamb to him (and not to everyone else). The Bible says that there stood a Lamb: not something that looked like a Lamb but actually was not (in case you would be entirely right), but simply "[there] stood a Lamb", without qualification that this was simply what He looked like.
In fact, your exegesis of Genesis 18 and 19 is also fallacious. Let me work from the KJV, beginning with:
And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent. And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him. (Gen 18:9,10)
Verse 14 makes it clear that the promise of "returning unto thee" was made strictly and specifically by Yahweh, the LORD. So why does your translation choose to use the
singular in verse 10 to denote the speaker of that promise? Simple: because
only one of the men was the LORD. The other two were angels, who could with God ask where Sarah was, but who could not with God promise to return to her (because it was not their job to do so). In verse 22 the conversation finishes:
And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD. (Gen 18:22)
So the LORD stays behind to discuss with Abraham the fate of Sodom, and how many men make it into Sodom?
And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; (Gen 19:1)
The implication is clear as day: the divine personage stays to discuss with Abraham, while the two others make their way to Sodom, where the Biblical narrative describes them as angels. This is important. There is nowhere in Scripture where an appearance of God Himself is called "an angel", with the important exception of "the angel of the LORD" (which this clearly isn't). So the two angels are clearly not God, and this is highlighted in the exchange where Lot pleads with them to let him flee to Zoar:
And Lot said unto them, Oh, not so, my LORD: Behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou hast shewed unto me in saving my life; and I cannot escape to the mountain, lest some evil take me, and I die: Behold now, this city is near to flee unto, and it is a little one: Oh, let me escape thither, (is it not a little one?) and my soul shall live. And he [the angel] said unto him, See, I have accepted thee concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow this city, for the which thou hast spoken. Haste thee, escape thither; for I cannot do anything till thou be come thither. (Gen 19:18-22a)
Lot calls the angel "my LORD"? That would utterly ruin my thesis if the word translated LORD was Yahweh - but it's not, it turns out, "LORD" is the KJV's (incorrectly capitalized) translation of the Hebrew
adonai (see original text
here), which is a deferential term for any authority from God Himself right down to a wife's husband. And why would the LORD Almighty say such as thing as "I cannot do anything till thou be come thither"? Would God be constrained so? No, this is clearly the talk of an angel who, although he certainly had the power to singe Lot along with the rest, cannot because he is acting under authority.
So once again: the LORD visits Abraham to promise him an heir, and two (very much finite, if angelic) personages leave Abraham to visit and punish the city of Sodom, while the LORD stays and allows Abraham to negotiate (!) with Him on the basis of preserving the righteous lives in that city.
Why does this matter? Firstly, because you're being wrong on the internet. But secondly and more importantly, you seem to have a defective theology of representations of the Godhead and of the Trinity. Having the Godhead show up as three identically nondescript men is not the Trinity: it is tritheism.
Jesus, the Son of God, becomes a man.
None of the other persons of the Trinity become human. At the baptism of Jesus, the Trinity is present, but Jesus is the only one of them who is a man: the Father presents Himself as a voice from Heaven, and the Spirit presents Himself as a sweet presence taking the form of a dove. In Revelations, Jesus is presented as a glorified man. Neither the Father nor the Spirit are ever given anything like an anthropomorphic appearance.
Yes, the Three are One,
but they are also distinct (while never divided), with distinct roles and haecceities; and while there are many hints of a plurality of persons within the Godhead, there are plenty of descriptions of God presenting Himself as
a human (that is, pre-Incarnation appearances of Jesus the Son of Man), but none of Him presenting Himself as multiple humans.
I believe in the Trinity, and I believe that when the Bible says "There stood a Lamb" it does not mean "There stood something looking like a Lamb", and I believe in actually
reading the translations I use to study the Bible - all of them. And I believe that you have little chance of understanding how we evolutionists understand Genesis if you don't even understand how the Bible uses its own metaphors.