Are there any creationists willing to debate?

[LorentzHA]

BTW, that bubonic plague story has nothing to do with mutation.

There is a group in group of researchers in New York City that found the link to the receptor mutation which does not recognize HIV being the same mutation that excluded Bubonic Plague many years before. If you have an issue give them a ring....

Do you know anything about semi-conservative replication?

I am literally AMAZED at the people I have met on this site that will challenge people, pop-off about topics they know NOTHING about!!!..and don't tell me you do know about it..because if you had ANY knowlege of this you would not of made that post.

 

[LorentzHA]

Sorry, forgot to include their name..they are "The Diamond Foundation"

 

[Fozzwald]

Please try to get things straight. Ryan and Pitman are talking about a large but still local flood that may or may not have been the "flood of Noah". The flood of Noah as a worldwide event was indeed falsified by Christian Geologists more than 130 years ago.

Creation was not falisified 150 years ago but Young Earth Creationism was.


The Frumious Bandersnatch

There are "heaps of articles" that refer to a global flood as well.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

There are "heaps of articles" that refer to a global flood as well.

There are certainly heaps of something refering to the global flood. Everyone that I have ever seen that tried to justify the flood in some way was full of obvious nonsense.

The global flood is falsified by the fossil record

http://www.christianforums.com/t42599&page=1

and biogeography

http://christianforums.com/t40474

and geology
http://christianforums.com/t41209

http://www.christianforums.com/t50900&page=1

Here is discussion a nice article by two famous creationist that shows how deeply they can heap stuff to try to validate a long refute myth

http://www.christianforums.com/t50735

The above are far from a comphrehensive list of global flood falsifications but they should do for starters.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Vance]

The ability of AIG and ICR to write large numbers of articles does not increase the liklihood that they are correct.

What is interesting is how recent this YEC phenomenon is, and how localized to the US (although it is making some significant inroads in Australia, I hear).

There is a very good history of this development here:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/history2.shtml?main

and here:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/history3.shtml?main

 

[LorentzHA]

There are "heaps of articles" that refer to a global flood as well.

There was a regional flood around that time. Please keep in mind that when you (not you, but Christians) say "global", that the people in the time of Noah, knew nothing of a "globe", they thought the world was flat and that their part of the world was the WHOLE world, so in that sense, then yes, it was "global".

 

[fortheloveofmike]

There was a regional flood around that time. Please keep in mind that when you (not you, but Christians) say "global", that the people in the time of Noah, knew nothing of a "globe", they thought the world was flat and that their part of the world was the WHOLE world, so in that sense, then yes, it was "global".

well the bible never says global flood really. it says it covered every mountain. but whether or not the people back then knew the world was round, God did, so i dont understand your point in bringing that up

 

[fortheloveofmike]

I am literally AMAZED at the people I have met on this site that will challenge people, pop-off about topics they know NOTHING about!!!..and don't tell me you do know about it..because if you had ANY knowlege of this you would not of made that post.

silly, reminds me of...you

 

[fortheloveofmike]

Sure it does. Because of mutaions, no matter how deadly a particular disease is, there's always a possibility of somebody being immune.

exactly, those born immune didnt die of it. those born not immune had the chance of dying from it. people werent born not immune and then made immune.

 

[Aaron11]

The point is, the gene had to already be there to be immune to the bubonic plague. Humans didn't react to the disease by evolving immunity.

 

[Arikay]

Sure they did.
Can you show us how they didnt?

 

[Nathan Poe]

The point is, the gene had to already be there to be immune to the bubonic plague. Humans didn't react to the disease by evolving immunity.

And nobody says they did.

Evolution is not something that is turned on and off like a switch. There's no "stimulus-response" effect, as in "Oh, gee, it's getting cold. I better evolve some fur now." The fur was there first; the need for it came later.

This is what Charles Darwin proposed: The theory of natural selection: Creatures live or die because of changes in their environment. Should there be a major change, such as an ice age or a plague, for example, some members of a population, because of mutations, will be better suited to deal with the new environment. Those that aren't will die off.

I'm oversimplifying. Let me give you an example:

You, Aaron11, were born with a mutation. You've had it your entire life, and you never even knew it was there. One of your genes was just a teensy bit "off."
It seems your immune system is just slightly different from "normal" humans: It works perfectly, and it also renders you immune to the dreaded MONGOLIAN ORANGE WARTS OF DEATH (MOWOD for short).

Hey! A benficial mutation! Lucky you. MOWOD may be a rare disease, but it is 100% fatal to whoever catches it. No treatment, no cure, no hope. Except for you, and anyone else whose DNA is similarly "off."

Let's assume that this is a pretty rare mutation, affecting only 1 in 2.5 million people. And the affected gene is recessive: You would have to mate with someone else who had this mutation in order to pass it on to your kids, and have them be immune to MOWOD.

With me so far?

Normally, you'd probably live and die without ever knowing you had this mutation, because, let's face it, what are the odds of you being exposed to MOWOD? and with the odds being 2,500,000/1, the chances of you passing this mutation along are rather slim....

Unless a MOWOD epidemic were to suddenly sweep the planet... Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. It's a calamity of global proportions, as cities, states, and entire nations are depopulated from this disease.... except those of you born with that slightly "off" gene.

1 in 2.5 million, remember? that doesn't sound like good odds, but considering that the planet has a human population of about 6 billion, that means that 2400 people will survive.

2400 people, breeding like rabbits, could repopulate the planet if they had to. And because the gene is passed on when two carriers mate, what happens? The next generation will all be immune as well.

And the next generation...
And the next...
And the next...

Eventually, the human population will be back up to 6 billion, but this time, all of them will have that gene, so the human race will never again have to worry about the MONGOLIAN ORANGE WARTS OF DEATH.

That's evolution by natural selection.

 

[fortheloveofmike]

but that really has nothing to do with how fishes became reptiles. that just explains how organisms unfit for their environments died.

 

[Arikay]

Where did it ask about fish becoming reptiles?

Or are you wanting to know about evidence for creationisms version of "Macro Evolution"

Practically the Same exact proccess happens, to change animals from one species to another, as to select immune people from non immune ones.

 

[fortheloveofmike]

Where did it ask about fish becoming reptiles?

Or are you wanting to know about evidence for creationisms version of "Macro Evolution"

Practically the Same exact proccess happens, to change animals from one species to another, as to select immune people from non immune ones.

how are they the same? for new species to be made there needs to be new imformation made in the DNA, for immune people to be selected, that just means that the people with non immune DNA die. they dont sound the same to me

 

[wblastyn]

but that really has nothing to do with how fishes became reptiles. that just explains how organisms unfit for their environments died.

Well if you give evolution enough time it can produce an entirely new species. The mechanisms of micro- and macro-evolution are exactly the same, macro-evolution is what you get over longer periods of time.

 

[wblastyn]

how are they the same? for new species to be made there needs to be new imformation made in the DNA, for immune people to be selected, that just means that the people with non immune DNA die. they dont sound the same to me

The mutation can give new information

 

[Arikay]

Its the same proccess.

Mutations Can add new information,
Here is a thread about how you can get New information:
http://www.christianforums.com/t52353

how are they the same? for new species to be made there needs to be new imformation made in the DNA, for immune people to be selected, that just means that the people with non immune DNA die. they dont sound the same to me

 

[Jet Black]

how are they the same? for new species to be made there needs to be new imformation made in the DNA, for immune people to be selected, that just means that the people with non immune DNA die. they dont sound the same to me

That is so painfully wrong, I can't be bothered retyping the entire rebuttal of the "there is no new information" argument, so here are a bunch of examples from a post I made on another thread:


There are a number of creationist claims that have been discounted several times:

No entirely new features or biological functions have evolved.

(note with interest the evolution of a single celled bacteria to form multicellular colonies.)

and alsoMutations only vary traits that are already there. They don't produce anything new

there's lots of examples for you to look at and argue about.

 

[Nathan Poe]

but that really has nothing to do with how fishes became reptiles. that just explains how organisms unfit for their environments died.

That's just one step of many in the process. Macroevolution is the product of many such mutations and environmental catastrophies over a long period of time.

In my example, let's label humans before the MOWOD plague as "Species A." After MOWOD, the new humans, who are now immune, are "Species B."
Granted, there's little difference between "A" and "B" except for their immune systems, but soner or later, some other catastrophe is going to occur, let's say we lose the Ozone layer, and only "Species C" will survive.

"C" will have the run of the Earth until nuclear war breaks out, and only "Species D" can handle the fallout.

Et cetera, et cetera....

Now tell me: By the time we get to "Species Z," are they going to look, act, or be able to breed with the original "Species A?"