A question for those who disagree with Evolution.

[Dave Ellis]

I prefer the term 'adaption' (the roaches that survive the poison) over microevolution. Microevolution builds a shaky bridge to macroevolution, and macroevolution is just too fantastic, the odds against it just too great to even consider it a valid theory. I dismiss it out of hand.

And how do you figure that? There is mountains of evidence in support of evolution, and no evidence that shows it's not occurring.

 

[god's_pawn]

And how do you figure that? There is mountains of evidence in support of evolution, and no evidence that shows it's not occurring.

Is there any documented evidence of speciation occurring within the last century? If so, can you provide a link?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Is there any documented evidence of speciation occurring within the last century? If so, can you provide a link?

London Underground mosquito - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ken-1122]

I prefer the term 'adaption' (the roaches that survive the poison) over microevolution. Microevolution builds a shaky bridge to macroevolution, and macroevolution is just too fantastic, the odds against it just too great to even consider it a valid theory. I dismiss it out of hand.

When the gene pool changes, by definition that is called evolution; not adaption.

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

Secondly, how is growing back a limb more fantastic than restoring eyesight or bringing someone back from the dead? I don't see how this one single type of miracle is so important.

A limb growing back cannot be faked. Other such claims can be.[/font]

In any case, theologically speaking I'm not sure that it's technically possible for God to do such a thing without violating free will. I'm willing to guess that if you were to personally witness God giving an amputee their limb back that you believe, right? Would you have a choice? I'm not sure that you would. I mean, in an extreme case you could, but you would also look like a fool doing so.

Belief is not a choice; I have no choice but to not believe in God because evidence prevents it.

If God were to reveal Himself in any way that makes denial of Him logically/rationally impossible then He would effectively be removing free will. God wants you to be able to choose Him freely without hindrance but also without undeniable evidence. I believe it is logically/rationally valid to believe in God, but I am also quite certain that there will always be room for doubt.

There is a big difference between believing God exists and choosing God. I believe Castro existed but I wouldn’t choose to follow his beliefs

K

 

[god's_pawn]

London Underground mosquito - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, that's a new subspecies. Do you have anything better?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Well, that's a new subspecies. Do you have anything better?

No, that's actually an example of a species. A species is generally defined by it's ability to interbreed as a group.

The underground mosquitos do not produce fertile eggs with the above ground standard mosquitos, so therefore speciation has occurred.

 

[god's_pawn]

A limb growing back cannot be faked. Other such claims can be.

It's very difficult to fake death effectively. Granted, people can be falsely diagnosed or assumed to be dead, but after multiple days in that state, it becomes increasingly difficult to assume that it's fake.

Belief is not a choice; I have no choice but to not believe in God because evidence prevents it.

You choose to believe things based on the evidence. In your opinion, there is more evidence against God than for Him; in my opinion, the opposite is the case. Unfortunately, to my understanding, it is far more difficult to find evidence against God than for Him. I would be interested to hear some of you objections, though I know that's not the subject of this topic.

There is a big difference between believing God exists and choosing God. I believe Castro existed but I wouldn’t choose to follow his beliefs

Granted, my bad on the word confusion. I think if you substitute "believe in" for choose, that would fix the issue.

 

[god's_pawn]

No, that's actually an example of a species. A species is generally defined by it's ability to interbreed as a group.

The underground mosquitos do not produce fertile eggs with the above ground standard mosquitos, so therefore speciation has occurred.

Even Wikipedia lists it as a subspecies.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Even Wikipedia lists it as a subspecies.

No it doesn't... I recommend you read the article.

For example, the second paragraph...

"The evidence for this mosquito being a different species from C. pipiens comes from research by Kate Byrne and Richard Nichols. The species have very different behaviours,[1] are extremely difficult to mate,[2] and with different allele frequencies consistent with genetic drift during a founder event.[4] More specifically, this mosquito, C. p. f. molestus, breeds all-year round, is cold intolerant, and bites rats, mice, and humans, in contrast to the above-ground species, which is cold tolerant, hibernates in the winter, and bites only birds. When the two varieties were cross-bred, the eggs were infertile, suggesting reproductive isolation."

 

[god's_pawn]

No it doesn't... I recommend you read the article.

For example, the second paragraph...

"The evidence for this mosquito being a different species from C. pipiens comes from research by Kate Byrne and Richard Nichols. The species have very different behaviours,[1] are extremely difficult to mate,[2] and with different allele frequencies consistent with genetic drift during a founder event.[4] More specifically, this mosquito, C. p. f. molestus, breeds all-year round, is cold intolerant, and bites rats, mice, and humans, in contrast to the above-ground species, which is cold tolerant, hibernates in the winter, and bites only birds. When the two varieties were cross-bred, the eggs were infertile, suggesting reproductive isolation."

Culex pipiens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note item 4 on the contents list.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Culex pipiens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note item 4 on the contents list.

Species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Subspecies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You'll notice the definitions say different species can not interbreed, while subspecies can interbreed with a given species.

Given the base definition, the London underground mosquito is not the same species, nor is it a subspecies of Culex Pipiens... they can not interbreed, the eggs are infertile.

That would point to an inaccuracy on the Wikipedia page you linked. They can't interbreed, so whoever listed it as a subspecies on there was incorrect in doing so.

 

[god's_pawn]

Species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Subspecies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You'll notice the definitions say different species can not interbreed, while subspecies can interbreed with a given species.

Given the base definition, the London underground mosquito is not the same species, nor is it a subspecies of Culex Pipiens... they can not interbreed, the eggs are infertile.

That would point to an inaccuracy on the Wikipedia page you linked. They can't interbreed, so whoever listed it as a subspecies on there was incorrect in doing so.

I'm still not convinced that it's true speciation in a "macro-evolutionary" sense, but I'll keep looking into it on my spare time. Do you have any other examples?

 

[Ken-1122]

You choose to believe things based on the evidence. In your opinion, there is more evidence against God than for Him; in my opinion, the opposite is the case. Unfortunately, to my understanding, it is far more difficult to find evidence against God than for Him. I would be interested to hear some of you objections, though I know that's not the subject of this topic.

for me belief happens after reason and logic demands it; not before. It's not a choice.

Granted, my bad on the word confusion. I think if you substitute "believe in" for choose, that would fix the issue.

What do you mean by "believe in God"? to believe he exist? if so how does that take away free will? I believe my mom exists but I still have freewill to do as she says or not; my free will is not effected. if it means something else please explain

K

 

[god's_pawn]

for me belief happens after reason and logic demands it; not before. It's not a choice.

That's basically what I'm saying. The evidence comes first. You can't believe in something before you know the evidence for it!

What do you mean by "believe in God"? to believe he exist? if so how does that take away free will? I believe my mom exists but I still have freewill to do as she says or not; my free will is not effected. if it means something else please explain

K

Yes, I meant his existence. Granted, knowing He exists does not, by itself, require obedience; however, there are secondary beliefs that follow that ultimately will. For instance, once you are forced to believe that God exists, you will be force to believe that what He has said is true. You will be force to accept His law or face the consequences. You also be confronted with His love, which I'm willing to guess would be very difficult to refuse. Could you still potentially disobey Him? Sure, but considering the consequences (assuming them to be true), why would you?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And how do you figure that? There is mountains of evidence in support of evolution, and no evidence that shows it's not occurring.

Maybe it's my orientation that's the problem. I always see special creation when I look around. Being a bible believer probably doesn't help either.

 

[Ken-1122]

once you are forced to believe that God exists, you will be force to believe that what He has said is true.

You mean I will be forced to believe what people say he said? No! People lie all the time.

You will be force to accept His law or face the consequences.

Only if he threatens to harm me, he doesn't have to do that ya know

You also be confronted with His love, which I'm willing to guess would be very difficult to refuse.

Love is a good thing; why would I refuse that?

K

 

[OneWithTime]

Well according to Christians and scientist humans ethnicity are forms of evolution. So yes I do believe in evolution or the "evolution of species". Man is just another animal

 

[Dave Ellis]

I'm still not convinced that it's true speciation in a "macro-evolutionary" sense, but I'll keep looking into it on my spare time. Do you have any other examples?

There are numerous examples out there, here's a brief writeup I pulled off of Google...

Speciation: more evidence ignored by intelligent design « Nondiscovery Blog

Basically, in the case of the London underground mosquitoes, it's a clear example of speciation. Their genetics have drifted to the point where they can no longer interbreed with the original population of mosquitoes.

Since they can no longer interbreed, their genetics can only now continue to go down different paths. Using creationist terminology the "micro" evolution experienced in one population will not be seen in the other population. As enough time passes, and there's thousands of those small changes, the two species will eventually look vastly different from each other.

 

[Ken-1122]

Or there's case C: God performs miracles which can be attributed to other sources if someone is unwilling to accept them as miracles. This is the option I choose. This would explain why miracles still happen, but why there are no reports of limbs returning to amputees (for which you agree that God is the only source for such a miracle).

I believe the point he is trying to make is your "it violates freewill" argument doesn't work. You said God doesn't preform such miracles today because it would violate freewill and force worship, but when he did miracles in the past; such as with the Egyptians they weren't forced to worship and believe so your argument fails. you need to come up with a different reason why he doesn't preform such miracles.

Ken