• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

A Question for Creationists

Status
Not open for further replies.

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟31,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Post 4 in response to froggy

Of course the two new species when a ring species splits will still be salamanders (or gulls, or greenish warblers, etc.) Even among species that have been separate they are still as close morphologically as different breeds of the same species. (A lioness actually looks more like a cougar than a Great Dane looks like a chihuahua). And almost as close genetically. Even a Florida panther and a clouded leopard, about as far apart as you can get genetically among the Great Cats, have similar DNA, just a little more different enough than necessary to prevent interbreeding. Evolution would make no sense if when a species split, one group became elephants and the other group became giraffes.

There was a species of animal called a lagomorph. It had long ears, strong hind legs and ate similarly to a rodent. As it spread out, there were all kinds of adaptations made. Eventually the adaptations produced different breeds, and like with the ring species, it split into different species, rabbits, hares, and jackrabbits. And over time those species split again, so that there are different species of rabbits, different species of hare, and different species of jackrabbit. But they are all still lagomorphs. They all still look and act like the original lagomorph, only different. But I left out a split, the very first split. The first split was into leporids and ochotonids. Rabbits, hares and jackrabbits are all leporids. So what happened to the ochotonids? Their ears became shorter and rounder. Their hind limbs, while still very strong are not so overpowering of the front limbs that hopping is not their main means of locomotion. We call them pikas, and a child is more likely to identify a live pika with a cartoon mouse than a cartoon rabbit, which is why the cartoon pika pocket monster has been given inaccurate rabbit ears.

Your son and you do not have the same DNA, but almost all of it is recognized human DNA, and at least half of his DNA is identical to half of yours (the half he inherited from you). Because so much is identical, we can tell that he is closely related, most likely a parent, a child, or a full sibling. If 1/4 or more, but significantly less than 1/2 were identical, you'd be a little more distantly related, a grandparent, an aunt or uncle who is full sibling to the parent, a half sibling, a nephew or niece, ofspring of a full sibling, or a grandchild, etc. It gets complicated with consanguinous ancestors (for example grand parents who were second or third cousins), but that is how DNA is used to determine how closely people are related.

It is used in exactly the same way to determine if species are genetically as close as they seen morphologically. A rabbit looks like a hare. The DNA shows that they are genetically similar.
 
Upvote 0
F

frogman2x

Guest
He didn't say it was sperm. He said they were similar. Pollen is basically the plant version of sperm - that doesn't mean it IS sperm, only that it serves a similar purpose.

That may be but it is not the same a having sex, but if you and he want to conider it is the same,be my guest.

Ignoring that you provide nothing to back up these claims, that pastors reject a theory that even you admit they don't understand hardly means much of anything.

Did you remind him that he did not provide any anything to back up his claim? Of course you didn't. I said most conservative pastors reject evolution, and I did not say they did not understnad it. I saiy they are not scientists. Most pastors have an education beyond a BA or BS and they are quite capable of understanding evolution, and biology if they care to.

It's a statement based on a wealth of evidence.

Now who is the one not providing the evidence for what they claim?

Your opinion is based on absolutely NOTHING.

Your OPINION is noted. I seem to know more about biology than you have exhibited so far. At least I know natural selection has never been proven and that mutations are not a mechanims for evolution. I know what I was taught and it was probably many years before you were taught anything but the ABC's.

When did 'evolutionists' make this change?

I don't know. Do you know that they did not?

How exactly did they do it?

Easy, just change it.

It was never a recognized scientific term.

You keep whinning about me not providing a source. This is the third comment you have made and have not provided a source.


Can you provide any source that gives a consistent definition for it, one that all creationist sources abide by?

No, can you?
 
Upvote 0
F

frogman2x

Guest

If this discussin upsets you so much, you should consider just posting to those who agree with you.

I am sorry about not using the quote function properly. The other forum I am in has a different format and sometimes I forget and use it.

If you see>>______<< That is the quote function I am use to.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
That may be but it is not the same a having sex, but if you and he want to conider it is the same,be my guest.

It is sexual reproduction. It is two diploid organisms that each donate a haploid copy of their genomes to produce an offspring.

"Sexual reproduction is a process that creates a new organism by combining the genetic material of two organisms."
Sexual reproduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is sex.


The professional creationists I have seen, and their acolytes on forums like these, display a vast ignorance of biology. A simple discussion on genetics is usually all it takes to show that they are out of their depths. For example, Duane Gish once made this claim:

"If we look at certain proteins, yes, man then -- it can be assumed that man is more closely related to a chimpanzee than other things. But on the other hand, if you look at other certain proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a bullfrog than he is a chimpanzee. If you focus your attention on other proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a chicken than he is to a chimpanzee."
Scientific Creationism and Error

Anyone with knowledge of genetics knows that this is wrong, and it is baffling why anyone would make such a ludicrous claim. Such are creationists.

Your OPINION is noted. I seem to know more about biology than you have exhibited so far. At least I know natural selection has never been proven and that mutations are not a mechanims for evolution.

Mutations are certainly a mechanism of evolution. They are what cause divergence between lineages.
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟31,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private

It was not the discussion that got me upset, it was losing two hours work to a computer glitch. The bad quote tags did slow me down, and so added to the frustration, but I suspect that they were not the deciding factor in the timeout, assuming that's what caused the glitch.
 
Upvote 0

FatBurk

That should read FayBurk and not FatBurk.
Nov 8, 2013
122
0
✟262.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Your patience tells me you are a teacher, or should be.
 
Upvote 0
F

frogman2x

Guest


Okay. Not worth quibbling over.

I never claimed or implied Creationists were incapable of learning the truth.

I did not say you did. I don't get my rejection of evolution from my pastors. I get if from the scientists at the ICR and they all have PhD's is some field of science and what they say makes more sense than what the evolutionists say.

If I thought that, I would have long ago given up trying to reach you and show you the truth. I do beleive that you are uneducated in science, and therefore ignorant, but both are conditions that can be fixed with just a little study and a lot of patience.<<

I don't have a degree in science but I do have a degree and that indicates I have the ability to read, evaluate and understand.

Everybody is uneducated and ignorant until they learn.

Of course but that applies to evolutinists as well. It is really irritating that the evos think that if someone disagrees with evolution it is because they don't understand it. That is nonsense. NOt only is it nonsense, it is arrogant and self-serving. If only novices like me disagreed that would be one thing, but many well educated creation scientists also disagree.

 
Upvote 0

lasthero

Newbie
Jul 30, 2013
11,421
5,795
✟236,977.00
Faith
Seeker
That may be but it is not the same a having sex, but if you and he want to conider it is the same,be my guest.

Just because you'll never see two trees going at it like dogs in heat doesn't mean they don't sexually reproduce. I know you think evolution is all false and everything, but that was no excuse to ignore everything in your biology classes.

I said most conservative pastors reject evolution, and I did not say they did not understnad it.

Um. Yes, you did say that. Tacitly, anyway.

Most Christian pastors do not understand biology which is necessary to try and explain evolution.

If they don't understand biology, they don't understand evolution by extension, because evolution is a part of biology.

It's a statement based on a wealth of evidence.

No one in this thread. You've been given hundreds of posts worth of it.

You keep whinning about me not providing a source. This is the third comment you have made and have not provided a source.

Provided a source for what? Kind never being a recognized scientific term? That's your claim, not mine. The burden's on you to support it, not on me to prove a negative. You're really not familiar with how arguments work, are you?
 
Upvote 0
F

frogman2x

Guest
 
Upvote 0
F

frogman2x

Guest
v
 
Upvote 0

lasthero

Newbie
Jul 30, 2013
11,421
5,795
✟236,977.00
Faith
Seeker
No, can you?

Because it doesn't exist. Because there is no consistent definition for kinds.

Here's a guy who thought 'kinds' had to do with animals who could exchange blood.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7782656/

This site says that kind is close to species, but not really.

Zonkeys, Ligers, and Wolphins, Oh My! - Answers in Genesis


The poster here seems to think 'bacteria' are a kind, when bacteria is actually a kingdom comprises millions upon millions of different species.


http://www.christianforums.com/t7787159-post64483017/?highlight=bacteria#post64483017



There word 'species' can be hard to define, but even with the definitions, there's a limit. There's a wide range of animals that no scientist would disagree with as different species. With 'kind', the definition changes radically from creationist to creationist, because the only purpose for the word is so that creationists can have something to say an animal is 'still'. It's a license to shift the goal posts, and it's painfully obvious.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
F

frogman2x

Guest
An apple falling off a tree tells us absolutely nothing about gravity.

What a sad but untrue statement. It proves one of the laws of gravity.


It's an observation, but people have been observing things fall forever.

Right. Do you really not udnestadn that it is through observation and repeating something that proves it. Without a strong wind has an apple ever fallen upward. Is falling upward an oxymoran.


[/QUOTE]The theory of gravity is not just 'things fall down'.[/quote]

Whoever said it was. But that falling down part has been prove a gazillion times, maybe even a gazillion and 1 times.
 
Upvote 0

lasthero

Newbie
Jul 30, 2013
11,421
5,795
✟236,977.00
Faith
Seeker
If it doesn't happen naturally in nature allyuou have proved is thaqt man has become good at tinkering with nanture.

Wait, stop.

If what you say is true, if it's impossible for new 'kinds' to emerge, what does it matter whether it happened it nature or not? You said it couldn't happen at all. You never said creating new kinds through experimentation didn't count BEFORE.
 
Upvote 0

lasthero

Newbie
Jul 30, 2013
11,421
5,795
✟236,977.00
Faith
Seeker
What a sad but untrue statement. It proves one of the laws of gravity.
No, it doesn't. The law of gravity is not 'things fall down'.

Do you really not udnestadn that it is through observation and repeating something that proves it.

As has been established by a number of sources and agreed with by numerous posters in this topic - no, that is not 'proves' something.

Just curious - how many times do you think we have to observe and repeat something before it's 'proven'? Ten times? Twenty? A thousand?

But that falling down part has been prove a gazillion times, maybe even a gazillion and 1 times.

No, it hasn't been 'proven'. Saying something that's wrong and declaring it to be right despite the actual facts of the matter doesn't actually make what you're saying right, it just makes you extremely obstinate.

All dropping things demonstrates is the fact that objects tend to fall downward. It doesn't tell you why the planets follow an elliptical orbit. It doesn't explain how the Moon causes the tides. It doesn't explain why we should never, EVER, expect to find a planet shaped like a cube.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
Okay now explain, biologically of course. how adaption is a
mechanism for evolution.

You are getting simple terms wrong. The mechanisms of evolution CAUSES a population to adapt to their environment. The mechanisms are the cause, and adaptation is the outcome. Two of those mechanisms are random mutation and natural selection.

The rabbits remained rabbits and so did their kids.

The common ancestor we share with chimps was a primate, and we remain primates. Our common ancestor with bears was a mammal, and we remain mammals. Our common ancestor with trout was a vertebrate, and we remain vertebrates. Our common ancestor with protists was a eukaryote, and we remain eukaryotes.
 
Upvote 0
F

frogman2x

Guest
Post 3 in response to froggy

Evolution does not require that all life descended from one common ancestor,

That is what they use teach. Have you never heard of the primordial soup theory? To say that life originated from more than one ancestor is to say life
had more than one beginning. Now if you can't prove how life started, you certainly can prove it had more than one source. Life, and certainly the DNA it contains is far to complx to have started by accident. You have no idea wht it was or how it started. You start with a guess and not a vey good one at that.


but the fossil record, and the genome projects (which map out the complete DNA of different species and compare them) and several other methods all suggest the same family tree for all multi-cellular organisms.

It does no such thing. DNA is the separater of species not the uniter. When DNA was discoveed, all of the apples fell off your tree of life.


[/QUOTE] (There is a little confusion in placing some one-celled organisms in their proper places on the tree. That could suggest that some of them don't belong on the tree, being separate manifestations of life, but it is more likely that it is because they swap DNA non-sexually, something they have been observed doing.[/QUOTE]

More usual evo rhetoric, no evidence. How did that one-celled organism, something you just said evolution does not depend on, originate from lifelelss elements? That may be the biggest biological mountain theh evos face. If you don't know what it was, you certainly don't know what it became.

Still, as a Christian, I do believe in God. I believe He created and sustains the Universe.

Good.


Why is it u nlikelyd? Is God not omnipotent? Is there anythign in GEnesis that is beyone his ability to do? There is no indication except in the minds of men that Genesis should not be tqaken literally. Infact "after its kind" has been proven since God created living things.

But Genesis One gives one account of the Creation, and Genesis 2 gives a different one.

NOt if you study it with an open mind. Genesis 1:1 is the whol story with out any details. Gen 1:2-31 gives some of the details of what He did on each day. Genesis 2 gives some of the details of what happened on the 6th day. Think about this. If each day wa smillions of years, all of the plants creatd on the third day would hav died befor he sun was created.


The two can be reconciled, but only by making major interpretations of the meaning of Genesis 2.

NOt if you study it with an open mind.

And then, there is the fact that Genesis One is mythopoetic.

Prove it is not a fact?

The poetry is clear even in English translation, what with the repeated refrains "And God saw the. ... and it was Good," and "It was evening and morning the. ... day."

What is mythopoetic about that? Why would God make His creation a myth? What does a myth teach? Nothing. They are man-made stories.

The creation account teaches man the omniopetence of God and the glody of God and the love of God for man.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic

It is the evidence which points to a universal common ancestor. If the evidence pointed to multiple origins then it would have been made part of the theory of evolution.

Life, and certainly the DNA it contains is far to complx to have started by accident.

Where did you demonstrate this? Or is this just another empty assertion that you have zero evidence for?

You have no idea wht it was or how it started.

We do know that the evidence we do have is consistent with a single common ancestor, and we don't need to know how that common ancestor came to be in order to determine that life evolved from that single common ancestor.

Do we need to know the ultimate origin of matter in order to understand how molecules change over time? Do we need to know the ultimate origin of rocks in order to understand how they change when they are hit with water?


It does no such thing. DNA is the separater of species not the uniter. When DNA was discoveed, all of the apples fell off your tree of life.

Why can't DNA be used to demonstrate that two species share a common ancestor?


More usual evo rhetoric, no evidence. How did that one-celled organism, something you just said evolution does not depend on, originate from lifelelss elements?

Why do we need to know that in order to determine how life changed after that point? Please explain.

If that first life was put here by Vishnue 4 billion years ago, and all life evolved from that single ancestor, how would the theory of evolution be any different than what it is now?

Why is it u nlikelyd? Is God not omnipotent?

Does this mean that we have to throw out fingerprint evidence in court cases because God could have planted them at the crime scene?

NOt if you study it with an open mind.

So says the person who refuses to contemplate DNA evidence for shared ancestry.
 
Upvote 0
F

frogman2x

Guest
You are getting simple terms wrong. The mechanisms of evolution CAUSES a population to adapt to their environment. The mechanisms are the cause, and adaptation is the outcome. Two of those mechanisms are random mutation and natural selection.

Okay. no w explain, biologially of course, how adaptions is a mechanims for evol ution. If it was streu and you certainly can't prove it is, it would be a mechanims for survival, but the rabbits will not change specvies.

>>The common ancestor we share with chimps was a primate, and we remain primates. Our common ancestor with bears was a mammal, and we remain mammals. Our common ancestor with trout was a vertebrate, and we remain vertebrates. Our common ancestor with protists was a eukaryote, and we remain eukaryotes.[/quote]

And DNA says we are not related to chimps, bears or anything except homo sapians. Or DNA also says we ar not trelated to a eukaryote. In addition, you have not providedn the biologial evidende that we are related to chimps or bears. That is just the usual evo rhetoric. Instead of proving commn ancestory, DNA disproves it.
 
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
Originally Posted by OllieFranz

But Genesis One gives one account of the Creation, and Genesis 2 gives a different one. The two can be reconciled, but only by making major interpretations of the meaning of Genesis 2.

Dear OllieFranz, It depends on your interpretation. When you understand the story of the Creation, you should understand that there is but ONE story which continues through both Genesis 1 and 2.

Here it is in a nutshell:

Genesis 1 is the entire History of the Creation including events which will not happen until AFTER Jesus returns at the end of the present 6th Day.

Genesis 2 tells us that God's work is made perfect and He ceases ALL of His work of Creation. Genesis 2:1 shows that the entire host of heaven, which includes Humans, are present in heaven, when this event happens. Genesis 2:2 tell us of a Future Day of Rest when God rests from ALL of His work of creating. Genesis 2:3 repeats that God rests from ALL of His work of creating on the 7th Day, which has no evening and no end.

Since the Church and the Holy Spirit continues to create New Creatures in Christ TODAY, God has NOT yet rested from ALL of His work of creating. Has He?

At Genesis 2:4, we are taken BACk to the events of the 3rd Day. We are presently at Genesis 1:27 because God is STILL creating mankind (Adam) in His Image or in Christ. We will not advance to the Future at end of the present 6th Day for at least another thousand years.

The reason for the misinterpretation is that ancient men falsely assumed that God had already rested. Since God is STILL creating New Creatures in Christ Today. The 7th Day, when God rests from ALL of His work of Creating, is a Future event. That's God's Truth.

In Love,
Aman
 
Upvote 0
F

frogman2x

Guest
Post 4 in response to froggy

Of course the two new species when a ring species splits will still be salamanders (or gulls, or greenish warblers, etc.)

Of course and since they remain salamanders, evoluion has not taqken place.


]Even among species that have been separate they are still as close morphologically as different breeds of the same species.

If they are the same species, evolution ha snot taken place.


Looks are irrelevant. The ability to breed naturally is the key. Similar DNA show us they are different species. You have absolu tely no biologial evidene that elelphants and giraffes were ever part of the same group. What were they before the split? Be sure to proved the biological evidence hhat show How it was possible.


The usual party line and no biological evidence.


Right but both of our DNA show were are homo sapian and chimp DNA is different than human DNA.

It is used in exactly the same way to determine if species are genetically as close as they seen morphologically. A rabbit looks like a hare. The DNA shows that they are genetically similar.

But the DNA of each shows they are not related. Close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.