Challenge for YECs: What are the roles of population and species in evolution?

[PsychoSarah]

but its still a creation. so again we have natural evolution or creation.

No, since evolution doesn't cover the origin of the first life, and life only evolves when it is already present and has reproduced, the first generation of living cells on this planet would not have undergone biological evolution prior to their formation as living cells. Evolution starts when the first living cell reproduces, no sooner than that.

 

[Speedwell]

but its still a creation. so again we have natural evolution or creation.

Natural evolution does not rule out creation. To say otherwise is nothing but a bald-faced lie.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, since evolution doesn't cover the origin of the first life,

Actually it should, but science distances itself from that with a little parlor trick:

It claims evolution is only about biological evolution, and disregards seven other kinds of evolution.

If scientists would be [cough] honest, they would have to account for how abiogenesis got started and how it works

But these hypocrites in white know better, because they are under the influence of Satan's nine muses, and know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, and know when to run.

 

[AV1611VET]

Natural evolution does not rule out creation.

Then maybe natural evolution would like to explain how it pulled off creatio ex nihilo to us?

 

[Speedwell]

Then maybe natural evolution would like to explain how it pulled off creatio ex nihilo to us?

Why would a theory of biology nead to explain creation ex nihilo?

 

[Speedwell]

If scientists would be [cough] honest, they would have to account for how abiogenesis got started and how it works

They are trying their best to find out.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why would a theory of biology nead to explain creation ex nihilo?

Weren't you just bragging that natural evolution does not rule out creation?

Perhaps natural evolution would then care to tell us how creatio ex nihilo works?

 

[AV1611VET]

They are trying their best to find out.

Who? can you give me a name?

 

[Speedwell]

Who? can you give me a name?

"A" name? There are tens of thousands of names. It's a hot field right now, the last frontier, so to speak. Google "abiogenesis research" and look at the references in the articles for the names of scientists who have published papers on the subject.

 

[Speedwell]

Weren't you just bragging that natural evolution does not rule out creation?

But it doesn't explain it; it doesn't mention the subject at all. We're talking about the biological theory of evolution here, remember?

How do you know it was creation ex nihilo anyway? That's not even an essential Christian doctrine.

 

[AV1611VET]

"A" name? There are tens of thousands of names. It's a hot field right now, the last frontier, so to speak. Google "abiogenesis research" and look at the references in the articles for the names of scientists who have published papers on the subject.

Oh ... here we go.

Thanks for the advice.

Here's the first thing that came up: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum

Why didn't you tell me it's already been solved?

That article was from 2015!

 

[AV1611VET]

But it doesn't explain it; it doesn't mention the subject at all. We're talking about the biological theory of evolution here, remember?

Oh, ya.

Angels aren't biological units, are they?

How do you know it was creation ex nihilo anyway? That's not even an essential Christian doctrine.

Are you seriously kidding me?

 

[Speedwell]

Oh, ya.

Angels aren't biological units, are they?

I seriously doubt it.

Are you seriously kidding me?

No, I am not. Creation ex nihilo is not an essential Christian doctrine and not all Christians believe it. I'm an ex materia man, myself, though I probably be talked into ex deo if you worked at it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I seriously doubt it.

No, I am not. Creation ex nihilo is not an essential Christian doctrine and not all Christians believe it. I'm an ex materia man, myself.

Fair enough.

You're entitled to your own opinions.

 

[pitabread]

but its still a creation. so again we have natural evolution or creation.

Incorrect. Again, you are trying to simplify this down to an "A versus B" scenario, but reality and consequently hypotheses and theories about reality are far more nuanced than that.

 

[pitabread]

It claims evolution is only about biological evolution, and disregards seven other kinds of evolution.

If scientists would be [cough] honest, they would have to account for how abiogenesis got started and how it works

But these hypocrites in white know better, because they are under the influence of Satan's nine muses, and know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, and know when to run.

This is not even a remotely honest assessment of reality. Abiogenesis is a very active field of research. The reality of scientific theories is they all have scope limitations. This is true of theories in biology, physics, etc.

Suggesting some sort of ulterior motive is yet another pile of horse doody.

 

[AV1611VET]

Abiogenesis is a very active field of research.

And when are they going to give up and admit they've been chasing a rabbit?

By comparison, how long did they spend looking for evidence of the global flood?

 

[Speedwell]

And when are they going to give up and admit they've been chasing a rabbit?

By comparison, how long did they spend looking for evidence of the global flood?

About 150 years.

 

[pitabread]

And when are they going to give up and admit they've been chasing a rabbit?

Considering progress continues to be made about the understanding of basic living precursors, why would they give up?

This is again what I find so fascinating about the creationist view; this tendency to want to give up and not seek knowledge.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The way my words get twisted, I would have to see his post before I believed that.

I've been accused of saying clams could fly.

See points 3, 4, 5 & 6 in the post below. I've highlighted them for ease of identification. Basically the poster was trying to argue that us knowing how lightning is caused (electrical discharge) does not mean God is not the cause. It is staggering how people cling to religious beliefs so tightly in order to defend a faith position.

Are we still debating things on a universal basis ?

Because there are a number of problems with this argument (and I think you meant Zeus, not Thor who is the god of thunder...???)

1) It assumes an agreement on which god lightning is/was an act of. There could be dozens of gods used to explain lighting from Aztec gods, to Hindu gods, Shinto gods, Finnish mythologies, African tribes and so on....

So universal agreement on which god?

2) Some of these people still believe in this day-and-age that lightning can be or is an act of god. Now whether this is sincere or not, they still believe it.

3) Now I personally understand and accept that lightning is an electrical discharge, but I still believe that God (the Christian one) is capable of causing lighting - through the very nature of what I believe him to be like (all powerful). I can't prove this obviously other than from belief in what is he capable of...and I certainly believe in acts of God for the very simple fact that I hold a belief in God.

4) To support your argument you would have to show universal agreement that the new explanation (electrical discharge) has replaced the old explanation (act of god).

5) The trouble with that is that you would also have to show that God is in fact NOT or NO LONGER capable of producing lightning.

6) And to do that you would have to show that ALL gods that are worshipped either never existed, no longer exist, or if they do exist are incapable of producing lighting.[sic]

7) You would have to demonstrate this and convince all followers and believers of all the gods that are worshipped to stop worshipping them.

8) I don't think you can do this.

The whole point is that when you say the new explanation replaces the old explanation, you are making the assumption that there is universal agreement on the something replacing a need for god..

There isn't and won't be a universal agreement because we have the choice and freewill to accept and reject anything based on out own terms.

This is why I said this would only work for some people, and that for others the god explanation would be the correct explanation for them.

The key point here is that a need that is hardwired can be universal as we are all born with it as part of our DNA or genes.
But something like your description of lightning can't and won't ever be universal as it requires a change in belief and acceptance of something new to change a previous belief. There will always be someone who rejects something which is based on a belief.

And this is why I've previously made the distinction between a need for god and a belief in god....