What if we melded Evolution and Creation, in some way? That in the beginning, light set out to give

Tolworth John said:

That can be understood to say God created everything and that he included the provision for change.

Do I need to tell you that change does not equal evolution. ( if by evolution it is meant change from one type of creature into another.)

Click to expand...

You can tell me that all you want but you give me no reason to believe you.

Tolworth John said:

Interesting could you please explain for me how the randomness of selection or even of mutations is directed?
Is there some intelligence controlling this?
or scientific evidence that substanciate this?

Click to expand...

selection is semi random. As in, not everyone with the best adaption will survive, the zebra that randomly mutates to be faster then everyone else might trip, might get kicked by the other zebra, it might be the one the lioness really wants to eat that time, might run into a hidden lioness in front. But being faster menas that all the zebra behind it are more likly to be eaten.

There is always a element of randomness, but the regression of the mean means that the average over time will move forwade. what ever the advantageous mutation is, things will progress towards it being selected for.

the only randomness about selection is that there is no ultimate goal, it's not like creationists like to assume that humans are the pinacle of evolution or such, one century being white and adapted to cold might be the selection pressure, another year it might be being black and adapted to heat or other things.

Tolworth John said:

God by definition is perfect so if God declares that some thing id 'good' it follows that it is good.
It is splitting hairs to say good does not equal perfection.

Click to expand...

This isn't splitting hairs. This is directly following the logic of your claim.

Right now your claim is:

1) God said things were "good";
2) "Good" means "perfect";
3) "Perfect" precludes biological evolution.

Have I captured that correctly?

Now, the next thing for your to do is demonstrate how you can justify that progression of ideas. Right now it just reads like a non-sequitur.

Jimmy D said:

God wrote Genesis? Did he translate too, or was that one of these "men" who can't be trusted?

Click to expand...

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

coffee4u said:

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Click to expand...

Of course theopneustos is a coinage of St. Paul's so we don't know precisely what it means, but it is a universal belief amongst Christians that the Scriptures are in some fashion divinely inspired.

loveofourlord said:

selection is semi random. As in, not everyone with the best adaption will survive, the zebra that randomly mutates to be faster then everyone else might trip, might get kicked by the other zebra, it might be the one the lioness really wants to eat that time, might run into a hidden lioness in front. But being faster menas that all the zebra behind it are more likly to be eaten.

There is always a element of randomness, but the regression of the mean means that the average over time will move forwade. what ever the advantageous mutation is, things will progress towards it being selected for.

the only randomness about selection is that there is no ultimate goal, it's not like creationists like to assume that humans are the pinacle of evolution or such, one century being white and adapted to cold might be the selection pressure, another year it might be being black and adapted to heat or other things.

Click to expand...

What you say explains why some animals are faster, able to eat differnt foods but does not explain how one animal can change into another unknown type of animal.

pitabread said:

This isn't splitting hairs. This is directly following the logic of your claim.

Right now your claim is:

1) God said things were "good";
2) "Good" means "perfect";
3) "Perfect" precludes biological evolution.

Have I captured that correctly?

Now, the next thing for your to do is demonstrate how you can justify that progression of ideas. Right now it just reads like a non-sequitur.

Click to expand...

Yes it is a non sequiter as 3 does not fit into the sequence.
Perfect as a word or idea is not a denial of biological evolution.

Speedwell said:

You can tell me that all you want but you give me no reason to believe you.

Click to expand...

I don't expect you to believe me, but to believe what science teaches.

Tolworth John said:

What you say explains why some animals are faster, able to eat differnt foods but does not explain how one animal can change into another unknown type of animal.

Click to expand...

because changes acumilate over time, there is little different between human and other apes, or even monkeys that isn't just changing what is already there. Thats something you guys miss, your always, "Wheres the new information." well what new information is actually required?

Tolworth John said:

What you say explains why some animals are faster, able to eat differnt foods but does not explain how one animal can change into another unknown type of animal.

Click to expand...

One animal doesn't change into another unknown type of animal.

In a population of a particular species, individuals will vary, with some having traits that give them an advantage over the average individual, and some having traits that put them at a disadvantage - in terms of having viable offspring. When the traits are heritable (passed on to the offspring), the offspring will also have those advantages or disadvantages.

Consequently, over the generations, an increasing proportion of the population will have the advantageous traits (because they tend to have more offspring than average), and a decreasing proportion of the population will tend to have the disadvantageous traits (because they tend to have fewer offspring than average). This is the population evolving.

If conditions are severe or change rapidly (a new predator, competition for food, a climate or geographic change, etc), small advantages can make a big difference to survival and reproductive success in each generation, so may rapidly accumulate, resulting in large changes from the original population.

For example, slow-moving herbivores on a species may be taken by a predator that can't catch the faster ones, so only the faster ones survive to reproduce, changing the herbivore population balance in favour of speed. Faster predators then have an advantage over their slower fellows, and the predator population will also change in favour of speed, resulting in an evolutionary ratcheting effect between predator and prey populations for speed - an evolutionary 'arms race' (literally, a legs race).

Alternatively, there may be herbivore variants that are bigger and more aggressive than their fellows, and can defend themselves and their young against the predators. The balance of the population will then tend towards those that can effectively defend against the predators. The more intelligent predators will then have an advantage among their fellows, in devising ways to separate the more vulnerable prey from the defenders, and so-on.

The speed selection and the defence selection could occur in separate populations of the same species, so that, over evolutionary timescales, the accumulations of small but advantageous changes might make such large changes in the morphology and lifestyles of those populations, that they look like different animals altogether (slim & fast vs big and aggressive).

Tolworth John said:

but does not explain how one animal can change into another unknown type of animal.

Click to expand...

That does not happen. Nor does ToE state that it does.

Really, just what is your level of academic attainment?

Tolworth John said:

Yes it is a non sequiter as 3 does not fit into the sequence.
Perfect as a word or idea is not a denial of biological evolution.

Click to expand...

Do you accept then that God used biological evolution for creating Earth's diversity of species?

So, you've given up on the whole "interruption" thing? Good - that made you look really naive.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

One animal doesn't change into another unknown type of animal.

Click to expand...

You're the one who said a one-cell creature came to life billions of years ago and gradually changed into swimming creatures, land animals and finally mankind, not us.

Now you are saying it didn't evolve into anything new at all?

coffee4u said:

You're the one who said a one-cell creature came to life billions of years ago and gradually changed into swimming creatures, land animals and finally mankind, not us.

Now you are saying it didn't evolve into anything new at all?

Click to expand...

Not in one speciation event, as you implied. One animal changes into a slightly different animal, not an "unknown type of animal.".

Speedwell said:

Not in one speciation event, as you implied. One animal changes into a slightly different animal, not an "unknown type of animal.".

Click to expand...

None of us are talking about one spectacular event.
Whenever we say "Evolutionists believe a once cell creature became man" We do mean fish-land animals-primates-man. We shouldn't have to say all of that every single time. It doesn't matter what steps you all believe it took, the fact is you believe a once cell creature through a natural process and a long time gained enough new DNA to become a man.

I say that takes a whole lot more faith than belief in a creator God. That a one-cell creature could ever gain enough new, functional DNA to make eyes, ears, wings, claws, the ability to lay eggs or gestate, reproduce, feed its young and whatever other behaviours it displays all by itself from chance random process and a lot of time. Even if I wasn't a Bible-believing evangelical Christian I wouldn't believe that.

coffee4u said:

None of us are talking about one spectacular event.
Whenever we say "Evolutionists believe a once cell creature became man" We do mean fish-land animals-primates-man. We shouldn't have to say all of that every single time. It doesn't matter what steps you all believe it took, the fact is you believe a once cell creature through a natural process and a long time gained enough new DNA to become a man.

I say that takes a whole lot more faith than belief in a creator God. That a one-cell creature could ever gain enough new, functional DNA to make eyes, ears, wings, claws, the ability to lay eggs or gestate, reproduce, feed its young and whatever other behaviours it displays all by itself from chance random process and a lot of time. Even if I wasn't a Bible-believing evangelical Christian I wouldn't believe that.

Click to expand...

yeah I mean it's not like some single celled organisms have massive amounts of DNA in them :> We all know they have very little DNA so no way that they could develop over time, has to be all brand new genes and such...wait. You guys keep using that word new DNA, I don't think it means what you think it means.

loveofourlord said:

yeah I mean it's not like some single celled organisms have massive amounts of DNA in them :> We all know they have very little DNA so no way that they could develop over time, has to be all brand new genes and such...wait. You guys keep using that word new DNA, I don't think it means what you think it means.

Click to expand...

DNA Is a Structure That Encodes Biological Information | Learn Science at Scitable

contains the molecular instructions for life, called deoxyribonucleic acid or DNA. Encoded within this DNA are the directions for traits as diverse as the colour of a person's eyes, the scent of a rose, and the way in which bacteria infect a lung cell.

Click to expand...

If the instruction a parent passes on to its offspring is not DNA, what is it then?

coffee4u said:

DNA Is a Structure That Encodes Biological Information | Learn Science at Scitable


If the instruction a parent passes on to its offspring is not DNA, what is it then?

Click to expand...

what does what I said have to do with what you said?

DNA exists, depending on your definition of new DNA it doesn't exist from goo to you.

if you mean whole cloth new genes or chromosones from nothing no they don't exist, but neither do they exist between goo to you.

What you have is gene, chromosone duplication and so on that create new dna that can be acted upon. SO it's not whole new genes from nothing, but instead the gene from the immune system being duplicated and turned into a gene for venom in platypus, or many other things. New genes like you guys claim arn't new, but old genes either repurposed, or duplicated and then acted upon.

coffee4u said:

None of us are talking about one spectacular event.
Whenever we say "Evolutionists believe a once cell creature became man" We do mean fish-land animals-primates-man. We shouldn't have to say all of that every single time. It doesn't matter what steps you all believe it took, the fact is you believe a once cell creature through a natural process and a long time gained enough new DNA to become a man.

I say that takes a whole lot more faith than belief in a creator God. That a one-cell creature could ever gain enough new, functional DNA to make eyes, ears, wings, claws, the ability to lay eggs or gestate, reproduce, feed its young and whatever other behaviours it displays all by itself from chance random process and a lot of time. Even if I wasn't a Bible-believing evangelical Christian I wouldn't believe that.

Click to expand...

Yes it would take a lot of faith if you didn't know that there was a demonstrable process by which it could happen.