Debate....

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 03:21 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #220



Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me. I've seen other creationists that think, if evolution is true, rabbits should be giving birth to squirrels or something.

But back to the barrier issue. In a single generation or even a handful of generations, you're not going to see much evidence of evolutionary change. In fact, you probably won't even see the formation of a new rabbit species (something you accept, remember?).

However, between each generation are changes, however small. It's the compounding of those changes over time that give rise to brand new species (whether new species of rabbits or something we might no longer call rabbits). From a generation to generation standpoint, you're not going to see much change. But, as you pick points further and further apart between generations, more change will be evident (of course, this is entirely dependent on other factors; selection pressures and so forth).

The problem, I think, is some people don't see that changes are compounded; that, in fact, evolution is recursive. They see each individual step as being exactly the same (rabbits giving birth to rabbits), and neglect to compound variation from generation to generation. Maybe I should make a visual to illustrate this.

Pete, believe it or not, I do understand how evloution theory works.

I really did buy it all and it made perfect sense up till a few years back.

I dont mean to be demeaning to you all for believing it as I do know its power to persuade.

I just say that the evidence for it is very questionable at best.

I really dont think God is going to send an evolutionist to hell, but quite a few folks dont stop at that.
Soon their whole perspective on scripture is distorted.

I believe in a 6 day creation because God said it, and I have not been convinced buy anything that absolutley proves otherwise. I have only seen conjecture/speculation.

So I choose to take God at His word.
Is there physical proof? Obviously not.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I threw this together just to illustrate how I conceptualize evolution.

The top bar is, I think, how some other people conceptualize it. That is, you start with one species, and over time always maintain the same species until suddenly, poof!, you have something completely different. The problem with this is it ignores the idea that evolution is recursive; that changes are compounded over time.

The bottom bar is how I conceptualize evolution. At any given point on that bar, the neighboring bars will be virtually indistinguishable from one other. In fact, take a segment of that bar less than 15 pixels wide, and someone would think they are all the same colour. However, over a longer period, the changes become more evident.

Now, the step-by-step process is exactly the same for every step: reproduction with a small amount of variation (as we observe today). All I am doing is extrapolating this process over a much longer period of time.

Of course, this is an oversimplification of how things work. Other factors play into evolutionary change (a species might remain relatively unchanged for a long period of time, but then evolve in a relatively "short" period of time due to environmental factors -- not overnight, mind you, but still through graduated steps).

 

[Follower of Christ]

Thats very good on paper.
I wonder how it works in reality?

 

[Arikay]

Follower: Have you ever considered that god didnt mean it literally?

I mean, there are plenty of phrases that people use that arent ment to be taken literally, so what keeps god from saying things there are supposed to be taken literally?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 03:30 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #221

Pete, believe it or not, I do understand how evloution theory works.

Well, you haven't made this evident in your posting so far. As I've said earlier, claiming one minute that you reject evolution, then turning around an accepting a bunch of it is, at best, confusing.

I dont mean to be demeaning to you all for believing it as I do know its power to persuade.

Ironically, I can say the exact same thing about creationist material. What got me into the whole debate was reading lots of creationist literature. I believed (for a short time, anyway) a lot of creationist claims and figured evolution was really in trouble. But as I learned more and more, I came away realizing that the creationist attacks on evolution aren't about science. They are about theology.

I just say that the evidence for it is very questionable at best.

That's fine. I'd disagree on this point, since I've primarely seen evidence for evolution, but little to no evidence against it.

I believe in a 6 day creation because God said it, and I have not been convinced buy anything that absolutley proves otherwise. I have only seen conjecture/speculation.

You disagree with evolution for theological reasons. And this is precisely why I take your, and other creationists' disagreements with evolution with more than a few grains of salt. Honestly, I bet if the Bible disagreed with gravity, we'd see a lot of people arguing that, too.

 

[Smilin]

Today at 03:40 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #223

Thats very good on paper.
I wonder how it works in reality?

Have you compared wolves, coyotes and dogs?

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 03:44 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #225



........
You disagree with evolution for theological reasons. And this is precisely why I take your, and other creationists' disagreements with evolution with more than a few grains of salt. Honestly, I bet if the Bible disagreed with gravity, we'd see a lot of people arguing that, too.

The Bible says to test everything.
I dont think God is going to be upset if we do test everything we see.

I think He will be upset if we choose to live by sight and not by faith.

I disagree for theological reasons that are not convincingly debunked by anything I have seen so far.
Most of the evidence fits very nicely into my religious little world.
That which doesnt has yet to prove evolution anyway.

 

[Arikay]

So, basically you believe creationism instead of evolution because its easier to accept and makes you feel better?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 03:40 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #223

Thats very good on paper.
I wonder how it works in reality?

Well, obviously it's not quite so simple in reality, mainly because:

a) rates of evolutionary change are not constant
b) evolutionary paths are branching not linear

The important thing, though, is that evolution is not about organisms changing wholesale from one generation to the next. There are steps involved and each step in the process is the same as the previous step (in terms of mechanism).

Which is precisely why I don't see a barrier anywhere.

 

[Jon]

If you weren't, you wouldn't be denying the evidence God left in Creation that evolution is how He created.

Creationists have all tied the existence of God to the particular how of creation that is creationism. Giving up creationism means giving up God for them. If it weren't they wouldn't be labeling all evolutionists as atheists or evolution as atheism.

A week ago I was a........nothing*.
Now I am a Creationist.
Giving up creationism dosn't mean giving up God.
Notice that I acepted God first and creationism.

I'm not denying any evidence, If you think I am then start a new thread or PM.

oh yea, there was a reason why I decided to be a creationist

 

[Arikay]

So, why did you become a creationist?

Today at 01:09 PM Jon said this in Post #230


A week ago I was a........nothing*.
Now I am a Creationist.
Giving up creationism dosn't mean giving up God.
Notice that I acepted God first and creationism.

I'm not denying any evidence, If you think I am then start a new thread or PM.

oh yea, there was a reason why I decided to be a creationist

 

[LadyShea]

Today at 01:09 PM Jon said this in Post #230


A week ago I was a........nothing*.
Now I am a Creationist.
Giving up creationism dosn't mean giving up God.
Notice that I acepted God first and creationism.

I'm not denying any evidence, If you think I am then start a new thread or PM.

oh yea, there was a reason why I decided to be a creationist

 

I find it interesting you are from Canada. The YEC movement widely considered American, and the rest of the world (Christian or not) thinks its rubbish.

Edited to add: I had never even heard of the young earth theory until I started visiting debate boards and my Mother was a Sunday School teacher when i was growing up

 

[Jon]

Today at 01:16 PM LadyShea said this in Post #232



 

I find it interesting you are from Canada. The YEC movement widely considered American, and the rest of the world (CHristian or not) thinks its rubbish

That is proably because Dr. Dino only(or mostly) works in the US.

 

[Jon]

Today at 01:13 PM Arikay said this in Post #231

So, why did you become a creationist?

Because from what I have seen makes more sense and science supports it more than evoultion(from what I have seen)

You, Pete Harcoff and lucaspa had a big inpact on my decision

 

[Arikay]

Can you explain this more?

As science supports evolution much more than creationism.

Today at 01:22 PM Jon said this in Post #234




Because from what I have seen makes more sense and science supports it more than evoultion(from what I have seen)

You, Pete Harcoff and lucaspa had a big inpact on my decision

 

[Jon]

Today at 01:26 PM Arikay said this in Post #235

Can you explain this more?

As science supports evolution much more than creationism.

I could but it will take me a while because I'm not very good at english (if you didn't notice).

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 04:22 PM Jon said this in Post #234

Because from what I have seen makes more sense and science supports it more than evoultion(from what I have seen)

You, Pete Harcoff and lucaspa had a big inpact on my decision

I think you give us too much credit. I doubt the three of us have that much power as to drive people to creationism.

 

[Arikay]

Thats fine.

Im just thinking that you arent understanding somethings. As there is No scientific backing for creationism. None at all.

Today at 01:29 PM Jon said this in Post #236




I could but it will take me a while because I'm not very good at english (if you didn't notice).

 

[Jon]

Today at 01:38 PM Arikay said this in Post #238

Thats fine.

Im just thinking that you arent understanding somethings.

I am proably misunderstanding somethings, but hopefully as my knowlege increases I will understand more things

 

[Smilin]

Today at 02:50 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #204

The Bible is considered a book of theology. Science in general, had no problem with theology right up 'tell Darwin came along. Then there was a rebellion and as is the case with rebellions of this sort, 2/3 of the so called "scientists" follow Darwin in his rebellion. Just like 2/3 of mankind in general is following satan in his rebellion against God.

Although Darwin never rejected the morality of the Bible, and always admired his wife and friends for their christian morality.



That is not a option. The Bible has been tested, tried and found to be true. It has been accepted as truth for 3500 years. It will continue to go right on being truth if you accept it, beleive it or understand it, does not change that it is truth.



I am just more interested in history right now than science. But with all the DNA research, science needs to study up on history a bit more. They are not going to get away with their generalities anymore. They are going to need to get their theories to line up with what we historically know to be true.

Esp. sense a lot of history is based on archology and that is a branch of science. So you can not have one branch of science in conflict or contradiction with another branch of science.

1. Okay, it's all Darwin's fault.

2. I knew you wouldn't consider that perhaps Genesis isn't accurate.

3. The Bible hasn't been changed? Why don't you start a thread on that. I'll debate you on it.