• 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.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Creationism/evolutionism

samaus12345

Newbie
Jun 28, 2012
629
6
Australia
✟23,736.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
F

frogman2x

Guest
Hi there. I used to post here 1.5 years or so ago just thought id post some resources for anyone interested

This is another forum on the net with lots of creationists (they run the forum so they set the rules which means evolutionists, learn what equivocation fallacy is)

Evolution Fairytale Forum

Lots of YEC/evolutionism videos


Slaves4Christ - YouTube

Creation Ministries (Australia)

Creation Ministries (Australia)

Creation Ministries (Australia)

Creation Ministries (Australia)

Creation Ministries (Australia)
Literature.org - The Online Literature Library

They may also learn that nothing in evolution has ever been scientifically proven and is not real science. To start, if you want to, proved the scientific evidence for anything evolution has preached for the last 100+ years.


kermit
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
They may also learn that nothing in evolution has ever been scientifically proven and is not real science. To start, if you want to, proved the scientific evidence for anything evolution has preached for the last 100+ years.kermit

Natural selection works.
Just like animal husbandry works as an unatural selection process.
All aspects of natural selection have been tested and documented...by Christians.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Nothing in your link proved it works. Do you have any other evidence?

If you raise any animals, you can test the idea of natural selection.
You can choose color, or resistance to heat, or cold, or any factor.
You can influence the species by using artificial or natural means
of selecting certain traits. Milk cows are bred different from Meat cattle.

dairy-cow.jpg


DerrerSteer.jpg


http://carm.org/dictionary-natural-selection
 
Upvote 0
F

frogman2x

Guest
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
When men tinker, it is no longer natural selection.


The process and results can be the same no matter if the environmental stress on the population is direct or less than direct. There are very few population stresses that are not directly caused by man. Almost none. A volcano may be an exception. Or sunspots causing global warming or cooling. Maybe you wanted scientific papers.

http://news.Superfast evolution in sea stars?id=10291

http://www.news/super-fast-evolution.html
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
F

frogman2x

Guest
The process and results can be the same no matter if the environmental stress on the population is direct or less than direct

They are not the same. Unless it happens naturally as the phrase says it is not natural. When men tinker the process is not natural, that is obvious.

There are very few population stresses that are not directly caused by man. Almost none.

Irrelevant. Population stresses are not a mechanism for evolution. The species either adapts or becomes extinct.

A volcano may be an exception. Or sunspots causing global warming or cooling. Maybe you wanted scientific papers.

You change the subject. Stress on populations is not a mechanism for change. I wanted to discuss whether the phrase evolutionist like to use "natural selection," can be proven. It cannot. The traits in the offspring are determined by one thing, the genes of the parents. As far as we know, there is no gene for stronger legs in a rabbit. Natural selection is a red herring the evolutionist need to divert from the real scientific evidence. There is no evidence supporting natural selection. If there is please presented.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Irrelevant. Population stresses are not a mechanism for evolution. The species either adapts or becomes extinct.

This is a self-contradiction. A species adapts by evolving. And it adapts because of population stresses.



You change the subject. Stress on populations is not a mechanism for change. I wanted to discuss whether the phrase evolutionist like to use "natural selection," can be proven. It cannot.


What you referred to above as "population stresses" is natural selection. Two labels for the same reality. And it has one effect: adaptation of the species so it can survive better in conditions of population stress. That's evolution.


The traits in the offspring are determined by one thing, the genes of the parents. As far as we know, there is no gene for stronger legs in a rabbit. Natural selection is a red herring the evolutionist need to divert from the real scientific evidence. There is no evidence supporting natural selection. If there is please presented.

I expect your own idiosyncratic definition of natural selection is a strawman. So you can't expect evidence for that. As for real evidence, you laid it out in your own words: whereever you can point to adaptation, you are pointing at evolution. Evolution is the process; adaptation is the result.
 
Upvote 0
F

frogman2x

Guest
This is a self-contradiction

It is not it is common sense. If the environment becomes hostile to them they either adapt or they become extinct.


A species adapts by evolving. And it adapts because of population stresses.

Now think about this. If it takes millions of years to evolve how will it adapt during that time without becoming extinct. Stress will not overcome the laws of genetics.

What you referred to above as "population stresses" is natural selection.

You've yet to provide any scientific evidence that natural selection of the fact.

Two labels for the same reality. And it has one effect: adaptation of the species so it can survive better in conditions of population stress. That's evolution.

Adaption is not evolution. The ability to survive is not evolution. Adaption is about survival not change. And you've yet to produce any scientific evidence that supports natural selection.

I expect your own idiosyncratic definition of natural selection is a strawman. So you can't expect evidence for that.

That comment is your strawman. You don't have any scientific evidence for what you say so you try to make my comments the strawman. Is not the definition is the problem, if the evidence that supports it.

As for real evidence, you laid it out in your own words: whereever you can point to adaptation, you are pointing at evolution. Evolution is the process; adaptation is the result.

not only are they not my words there are the opposite of what I said. Adaptation does not equal evolution. Adaptation can lead to the survival of the species that is not a mechanism to change it into a different species. That is common sense.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
It is not it is common sense. If the environment becomes hostile to them they either adapt or they become extinct.

And to adapt they have to evolve.




Now think about this. If it takes millions of years to evolve how will it adapt during that time without becoming extinct. Stress will not overcome the laws of genetics.

What makes you think it takes millions of years to evolve? On the island of Pod Mraru some wall lizards evolved new features in just 30 years. Depends on how much evolution you are referring to. Evolution can proceed very quickly or very slowly depending on circumstances.

No, stress does not overcome the laws of genetics, but evolution doesn't break any laws of genetics anyway.



You've yet to provide any scientific evidence that natural selection of the fact.

Provide me with an example of adaptation and that is evidence of natural selection.



Adaption is not evolution.

If it is not evolution which causes adaptation, how does adaptation happen? I can tell you precisely how evolution leads to adaptation. See if you can show any other way in which adaptation happens.



The ability to survive is not evolution.

If surviving requires change, then the ability to survive depends on the ability to evolve.


Adaption is about survival not change.

Adaptation is change which enhances survival. Evolution produces adaptive change.

Adaptation does not equal evolution.
Yes, it does.

Adaptation can lead to the survival of the species that is not a mechanism to change it into a different species.

I didn't say anything about changing into a different species. The principal effect of evolution is adaptation. Speciation is a different matter. Adaptive change is what evolution is about whether or not there is a new species.

IOW, evolution always produces adaptation, and sometimes also produces new species.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
So what did those wall lizards become?

Wall lizards. What did you expect?

Basically, the only way anti-evolutionists deny evolution is by inventing new unscientific definitions of what evolution is. You claim it is all about changing from one species to another. But it's not. It is about (usually) non-random survival of more adapted forms of a species and about speciation, i.e. the division of a parent species into modified and diversified forms of a species.

When those modified and diversified forms no longer interbreed with each other, they get to be called species in their own right. In the case of the wall lizards we have a modified and adapted form of the species, but not speciation--yet.

Both before and after speciation, as long as modified forms are appearing via the processes of evolution, evolution is occurring. Calling the before speciation phase of evolutionary change by a different term (such as adaptation or variation) is just masking the reality with verbiage. Claiming adaptation or variation or whatever other term you want to use is not evolution at all is a false. proposition. Unless you can show a non-evolutionary way of producing an adaptation or variation.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Wall lizards. What did you expect?....

:)

But why wait 30 years. Don't changes take place upon every birth? I've never seen a child look exactly like their parents. Evolution!

But yes, I expected you to have to admit that wall lizards evolved into wall lizards.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
:)

But why wait 30 years. Don't changes take place upon every birth? I've never seen a child look exactly like their parents. Evolution!

But yes, I expected you to have to admit that wall lizards evolved into wall lizards.

It's not a matter of waiting. It's a matter of observing. The lizards were transferred from their own island to a different island before Yugoslavia fell apart. During the ensuing wars, no one visited them. So the discovery of their evolution didn't happen until 30 years after the initial transfer.

So, yes changes were taking place upon every birth. However, that in itself doesn't generate adaptive changes in a species. Changes per se, occur in all directions while adaptation requires direction. Direction comes through selecting those changes that are adaptive. Both the process of change and the process of selection is continuous in every generation.

And that combination of change and selection in the direction of adaptation is the process of evolution.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
They are not the same. Unless it happens naturally as the phrase says it is not natural. When men tinker the process is not natural, that is obvious.

The mechanism is identical. Those that survive any environmental stress causing population stresses, natural or human caused, pass on traits to the population.


You change the subject. Stress on populations is not a mechanism for change. I wanted to discuss whether the phrase evolutionist like to use "natural selection," can be proven. It cannot. The traits in the offspring are determined by one thing, the genes of the parents. As far as we know, there is no gene for stronger legs in a rabbit. Natural selection is a red herring the evolutionist need to divert from the real scientific evidence. There is no evidence supporting natural selection. If there is please presented.

Incorrect. All populations have natural variability. DNA research has shown that canines have an unusually large number of repeating sequences. This rather large number results in a tendency of varying traits to "stick" to the offspring beeter than other animals. As a result, dogs can undergo natural selection much faster or "unnatural " selection much faster than most animals.

dogs.png


http://www.pbs.org/Evolution of the Dog

Natural Selection | CARM

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/science/high-above-sea-level-evolutionary-hot-spots.html?_r=0

Lice evolve faster than their human and chimp hosts - latimes.com
 
Upvote 0
F

frogman2x

Guest
And to adapt they have to evolve.

The need to adapt is not a mechanism for evolution. Also they don't have to evolve they can move to a more friendly environment. That's what some species of geese to in the wintertime. So do some butterflies.

What makes you think it takes millions of years to evolve? On the island of Pod Mraru some wall lizards evolved new features in just 30 years. Depends on how much evolution you are referring to. Evolution can proceed very quickly or very slowly depending on circumstances.

Where's the evidence that evolution can proceed very quickly. There is none. What new feature to these lizards obtain. How do these new features which you can explain how they got them be the cause for the adaptation. Also it is always amusing that they remained lizards. Do you not realize for evolution be true the lizard had to become something other than a lizard.

No, stress does not overcome the laws of genetics, but evolution doesn't break any laws of genetics anyway.

You need to brush up on the laws of genetics. The basic law says if the parents don't have the gene for characteristics the children will never have the characteristic. Evolutionists say that's not necessary they can adapt the characteristics for which the parents did not have the gene.

Even if your guess on what the first life form was, it did not have bones. It did not need bones. It did not have the gene for bones. Then I explain how the offspring of the acquired bones.

In fact you have no idea what the first life form was, or what the Second Life form was, or what the third life form was; and on and on and on. You start with the guests and you been guessing for over 100 years and haven't found the first thing that can be proven scientifically yet.

Provide me with an example of adaptation and that is evidence of natural selection.

You got it backwards. Show me an example of natural selection that resulted adaptation. In fact show me an example of natural selection and how it worked.

If it is not evolution which causes adaptation, how does adaptation happen?

The only way adaption can take place is for the species to move to a nonhostile environment, and they don't have time to evolve.


I can tell you precisely how evolution leads to adaptation.

Wonderful, just make sure you provide the scientific evidence that makes it possible.

See if you can show any other way in which adaptation happens.

I just did.

If surviving requires change, then the ability to survive depends on the ability to evolve.

Survival doesn't require change. It requires getting out of Dodge as fast as you can. It takes too long to evolve into something I can adapt to the environment that is sent that have to move or spy become extinct.

Adaptation is change which enhances survival. Evolution produces adaptive change.

Adaption is not change. Give me an example, just one, of the species that evolved, and what did it adapt, what new characteristics did it receive.

I didn't say anything about changing into a different species.

If it involved it had to become a different species or there is No evolution..


The principal effect of evolution is adaptation. Speciation is a different matter. Adaptive change is what evolution is about whether or not there is a new species.

It is not if there's no new species evolution is not taken place.

]IOW, evolution always produces adaptation, and sometimes also produces new species.

You are long on rhetoric but very short on evidence that supports what you say.
 
Upvote 0