Debate....

[notto]

Yesterday at 11:36 PM Arikay said this in Post #20

Ok. I agree with Pete too.

I have learned all sorts of things that I didnt know, about evolution, the bible, creationism, and about other things that I researched because of these discussions.

One thing I enjoy about these discussions is that it keeps me up on current research and forces me to research as well. When I was originally learning about many of the things discussed here, the internet was a baby and we actually had to go to the library to research.

You young punks have it so easy now days.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 03:39 PM Jon said this in Post #1

We are going to have a debate (hopefully).

Why?

Because I want to see one in action

 

The debate is:

Evoultion vs. Creationism

 

BEFORE YOU POST tell everyone what you belive (eg. I belive that God Created the earth in 6 24h days and that the earth is 6000 years old.)

Jon, truth is never settled by debate.  Debate is a sport and the object is to settle who is the better debator.  If you want to discuss the scientific theories of evolution and creationism, then we can do that.

BTW, your example of statement of belief is two different statements that are not connected.  "God Created" is one statement and is one that evolution doesn't address.  "the earth in 6 24h days and that the earth is 6000 years old." is a scientific theory that has been falsified by the data.

I suspect that you too really wish to discuss the theism vs atheism controversy and are also equating evolution to atheism.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 12:10 AM SBfaithful said this in Post #14

Can anyone bring up one case where evolution has caused a gain in genetic material?

Gains in genetic material is not due to "evolution". Rather, it is due to copying errors.  There are several documented instances where DNA content has increased. Gene duplication is one of them.  Rearrangements is another.  Splicing is a third.  Chromosome duplication is a fourth. And finally, whole genome duplication has been observed.  All these cause an increase in genetic material.

An extreme example is:

9. Double dose of DNA.  Science 285: 195, 2 July 1999. 

A rat species, visach rat,  has 51 chromosomes instead of the 26 of other rat species. All chromosomes are doubled except the sex chromosome.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 12:08 AM SBfaithful said this in Post #13

Macroevolution (or rather, the formation of new species) has been observed and documented.

are you talking about mutations?
Please explain the observation of one family type changing to another.
i.e. lizard to a bird [/B] [/QUOTE]

The transition you listed is one class to another, not "family".  Felines to canines would be a family.  In the fossil record? 

Transitional individuals from one class to another
1.  Principles of Paleontology by DM Raup and SM Stanley, 1971, there are transitional series between classes.  (mammals and reptiles are examples of a class)
2.  HK Erben, Uber den Ursprung der Ammonoidea. Biol. Rev. 41: 641-658, 1966.

Transitional individuals from one order to another
1. C Teichert "Nautiloidea-Discorsorida"  and "Actinoceratoidea" in Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology ed RC Moore, 1964
2.   PR Sheldon, Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites.  Nature 330: 561-563, 1987.  Rigourous biometric study of the pygidial ribs of 3458 specimens of 8 generic lineages in 7 stratgraphic layers covering about 3 million years.  Gradual evolution where at any given time the population was intermediate between the samples before it and after it.

All these are cases where there are individual fossils in a sequence in successive, undisturbed strata connecting across class or order lines.

Among living species, we haven't been observing speciation long enough to see that.  But remember, what is a "family type" such as lizards or birds?  They are collections of SPECIES. Nothing more.

We have seen the formation of a new genus within agriculture.

1.  Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979. Describes whole new *genus* of plants, Triticosecale, of several species. These plants are important in agriculture.   Tritocosecale is a hybrid of wheat and rye.

 

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 12:05 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #11

"Macroevolution (or rather, the formation of new species) has been observed and documented."



FOC:
This is the same old dribble.
Lack of interbreeding in offspring DOES NOT infer a new species.

Loss of information could easily do the same thing.


NEXT........

What does "loss of information" have to do with anything?  How do you define "information?

Biological species are defined as "different species represent different gene pools, which are goups of interbreeding or pontentially interbreeding individuals that do not exchange genes with other such groups." D Futuyma Evolutionary Biology pg 27

Now, changes in genetic content also infer a new species. 

In this paper -- G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster  Evolution 34:730-737, 1980.-- the authors put different populations of fruit flies on different diets and different temperatures for 5 years.  At the end of that time they compared populations.  They didn't interbreed. What's more, looking at the expressed genes, the populations differered by more than 3% .  Compare this to chimps and humans that differ by less that 2% in their expressed genes. 

BTW, since one diet was bread and the other meat, some of the flies aren't really "fruit" flies anymore, but "bread" or "meat" flies.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 12:08 AM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #12



Do you know how species are classified?

DO YOU think God follows mans classifications?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 07:44 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #26

DO YOU think God follows mans classifications?

...

So the answer to my question would be "no", I assume.

 

[webboffin]

Has anyone really defined what God is?

Maybe something that is pure energy that has unlimited knowledge and ultimate wisdom who can create by manipulating energy and matter to what ever he desires.

 

[Arikay]

I would like the creationist definition for a "kind" of animal. They also talk about how one "kind" cant evolve into another.

So what is a kind?

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 07:58 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #27



...

So the answer to my question would be "no", I assume.

Assume what you will.
I know of your hedge.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 09:56 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #30

Assume what you will.
I know of your hedge.

I don't have a hedge. A couple trees and a lawn and that's about it.

 

[Arikay]

And this is why a debate on the subject is hard.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 08:47 PM Arikay said this in Post #29

I would like the creationist definition for a "kind" of animal. They also talk about how one "kind" cant evolve into another.

So what is a kind?

This is one of the larger issues with evolutionist.

''Kind'' is the word the bible uses to separate different types of animals.
Dogs, cats, birds, elephants, etc.

I wont be lured into using ''species'' or other terms in this post as I believe as soon as I do, someone will be here right away to correct my definion.


Young Earth Christians do not ignore the evidence for the most part, other than a couple issues not totally understood yet, we ACCEPT THAT THE EVIDENCE FITS right into a young earth created in 6- 24 hour days.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 09:58 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #31



I don't have a hedge. A couple trees and a lawn and that's about it.

I now how this goes.

You ask for a definition.
I give a response, and when it is not what you were looking for you claim I know nothing of the issue instead of just admitting that I interpret the evidence in a scriptural light instead of evolutions.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 10:12 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #34

I now how this goes.

You ask for a definition.
I give a response, and when it is not what you were looking for you claim I know nothing of the issue instead of just admitting that I interpret the evidence in a scriptural light instead of evolutions.

I asked if you knew how species we classified. You dodged the question, so I assumed you didn't (because if you did, it should be easy enough to provide an answer).

 

[L'Anatra]

Today at 10:07 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #33
Young Earth Christians do not ignore the evidence for the most part, other than a couple issues not totally understood yet, we ACCEPT THAT THE EVIDENCE FITS right into a young earth created in 6- 24 hour days.

The problem is, sir, that the evidence does not fit right into a young earth. Young-Earth Creationism as a scientific theory was FALSIFIED nearly 200 years ago. What that means is evidence (an overwhelming amount) was found that forced scientists (all of them likely theists) to come up with several new theories in fields such as biology, geology, and cosmology.

Now, notice I said as a scientific theory. Theologically, you can believe whatever you like. You admit, though, that you do ignore some evidence. If you want to be intellectually sound, you can not pick and choose which evidence to weigh. For some people that means actually researching the issue. You clearly have not. Period.

This is a primary reason why a general debate is difficult to hold on these forums.

 

[Arikay]

You didnt answer the question.

For us to consider creationism as a science, you must define your terms.

So do you not know what kind actually means?

Today at 07:07 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #33


This is one of the larger issues with evolutionist.

''Kind'' is the word the bible uses to separate different types of animals.
Dogs, cats, birds, elephants, etc.

I wont be lured into using ''species'' or other terms in this post as I believe as soon as I do, someone will be here right away to correct my definion.


Young Earth Christians do not ignore the evidence for the most part, other than a couple issues not totally understood yet, we ACCEPT THAT THE EVIDENCE FITS right into a young earth created in 6- 24 hour days.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Today at 10:07 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #33

Young Earth Christians do not ignore the evidence for the most part, other than a couple issues not totally understood yet, we ACCEPT THAT THE EVIDENCE FITS right into a young earth created in 6- 24 hour days.

The evidence does not fit YECism. Yes, YECists DO indeed ignore evidence...that much is clear from these threads:

my thread on twelve features of the Grand Canyon that cannot exist in a Young Earth, flood geology scanario


notto's thread on the Hawaiian Island Chain

ardipithecus' thread on angular unconformities

my thread on varve deposits

and arikay's thread on the mathematical problems with the flood model

This is evidence that has been ignored and YECists simply skirt around the issue.

The only way evidence fits your model is if you ignore the evidence that falsifies it. That's not scientific, that's dogmatic and dishonest.

 

[Arikay]

Ok, can you show me a piece of evidence that hasnt been falsified and isnt out of the bible that fits with 6-24 creationism?

Today at 07:07 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #33


This is one of the larger issues with evolutionist.

''Kind'' is the word the bible uses to separate different types of animals.
Dogs, cats, birds, elephants, etc.

I wont be lured into using ''species'' or other terms in this post as I believe as soon as I do, someone will be here right away to correct my definion.


Young Earth Christians do not ignore the evidence for the most part, other than a couple issues not totally understood yet, we ACCEPT THAT THE EVIDENCE FITS right into a young earth created in 6- 24 hour days.

 

[Follower of Christ]

WHOA, gents.

I am sorry I gave you the impression I am trying to change YOUR point of veiw.
All I care about is making sure that any Christian who wanders in here can see that your evidence is not perfect and has been shown untrustworthy.

I could not possibly care less about how You feel about my fitting the evidence into my young earth.
You have no chance of changing my mind as I have none of convincing you.

This is not about your getting me to see your light.

I know of evolutions fraudulent material and exhibits out there posing as ''science''.

I have no need to convince anyone but that one person who hasnt fallen completey for your lie yet.