Debate....

[JohnR7]

Today at 10:46 AM LadyShea said this in Post #132

Scientists don't "change their story" because it's not a story. 

Oh, I'm sorry, should I have said: Creative writting, instead of story? They find things, make observations, then often they will make up a story to try and pass it off as the truth. Then they will fly it past their peer review so everyone can vote on how believable their story is.

Well, I know a women who found something that looks very much like a footprint in the rock in her creek out back. Would you care to go over to her house and make up a story about what she found? Maybe you can use it as absolute proof of something.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Well, a rabbit is still a rabbit.
Your ''evolution'' says that in a million years or so, a rabbit could ''evolve'' into a non-rabbit.
Thats where I would draw the line.

Rabbits may vary (size, shape and color or even lack of interbreeding between the sizes, shapes and colors) but they are always going to be rabbits.


(sorry, this got lost in the thread. I should have quoted)

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 11:03 AM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #139 

If you accept the fact that they can diversify to the point of producing new species, then that's really all there is to it.

But we do not accept that. At least we are getting past all the fluff and puff here to get at the core of the issue.

Why does it bother you that we do not accept that?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

You know what the biggest irony here is?

"Evolutionists" believe that evolution is responsible for the current biodiversity of species on the planet, having arisen from from earlier organisms over time.

Young-Earth Creationists (at least as far as FoC has made clear) believe that evolution is responsible for the current biodiversity of species on the planet, having arisen from from earlier organisms over time.

The only difference here seems to be the starting point and period of time involved. But whether you start from a Pre-Cambrian Earth some 4 billion years ago, or from Noah's Ark about 4000 years ago, the idea and process is exactly the same.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 11:09 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #142

Well, a rabbit is still a rabbit.
Your ''evolution'' says that in a million years or so, a rabbit could ''evolve'' into a non-rabbit.
Thats where I would draw the line.

Fine. Then show me where this "line" exists in nature. Because, having debated this point before, I've yet to have any creationist be able to demonstrate that such a "line" exists.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 11:05 AM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #140



Be honest here. Why do you think "evolutionary theory" is bad science?

Because a rabbit is a rabbit and it will always be a rabbit. It is not going to change into something else.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 11:12 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #143

But we do not accept that. At least we are getting past all the fluff and puff here to get at the core of the issue.

But FoC does accept that. He admitted he accepts the idea of speciation.

Why does it bother you that we do not accept that?

It doesn't bother me one or another what you believe. What bothers me is when I see people blindly attacking the Theory of Evolution, but don't seem to really understand what exactly they are attacking.

Even you, John, previously admitted to me you don't have a problem with evolution, as long as the special creation in Gen 2 could occur.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 11:12 AM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #144

You know what the biggest irony here is?

"Evolutionists" believe that evolution is responsible for the current biodiversity of species on the planet, having arisen from from earlier organisms over time.

Young-Earth Creationists (at least as far as FoC has made clear) believe that evolution is responsible for the current biodiversity of species on the planet, having arisen from from earlier organisms over time.

The only difference here seems to be the starting point and period of time involved. But whether you start from a Pre-Cambrian Earth some 4 billion years ago, or from Noah's Ark about 4000 years ago, the idea and process is exactly the same.

Its only similar because you observe what we observe.
But then you take a giant leap in the dark and say it all came from that which it did not.
And claim it took far longer than it actually did.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 11:17 AM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #147



But FoC does accept that. He admitted he accepts the idea of speciation.

I admit that a rabbit can produce a variety of rabbits.
Please dont push ideas into my words

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 11:16 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #146

Because a rabbit is a rabbit and it will always be a rabbit. It is not going to change into something else.

The problem, this proposed "line" in nature has never been rigidly defined. It's easy to say, "oh, that's a cat or that's a rabbit, and they'll never become something else". But when you start to analyse it on a species-by-species basis, it can get really, really confusing.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 11:18 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #148

Its only similar because you observe what we observe.
But then you take a giant leap in the dark and say it all came from that which it did not.
And claim it took far longer than it actually did.

The cumulative evidence for evolution (and an old Earth) compiled over the last 200 years is anything but a "giant leap in the dark".

There's a reason scientists propose what they do.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 11:20 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #149

I admit that a rabbit can produce a variety of rabbits.
Please dont push ideas into my words

If you accept that a single species of rabbit can produce over 50 species of rabbits, then you accept speciation and macroevolution (as per defined in biology). You might put an invisible "limit" on how much specation you accept, but in biology, a) no such limit appears to exist, and b) there's no term to describe such a limit.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 11:12 AM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #144

The only difference here seems to be the starting point and period of time involved. But whether you start from a Pre-Cambrian Earth some 4 billion years ago, or from Noah's Ark about 4000 years ago, the idea and process is exactly the same.

Oh no, there is a important difference here. God created Adam and Eve, they did not evolve from stone age men. God created domesticated animals along with Adam and Eve, they did not evolve from wild animals.

If anything, you should be able to prove that wild animal evolved into domestic animals. After all DNA and cattle is BIG business. They do lots of research and development in this area. But they can offer no proof that domesticated cattle have been around for longer than 6000 years or so.

 

[Jon]

Today at 08:23 AM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #151



The cumulative evidence for evolution (and an old Earth) compiled over the last 200 years is anything but a "giant leap in the dark".

There's a reason scientists propose what they do.

Pete Harcoff:

From what I have seen evoultionist make a big deal of a few discoveries which may only be a defected human.

I think that(from what i've seen) there is not enough evidence, and there is a "giant leap in the dark".

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 11:25 AM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #152

If you accept that a single species of rabbit can produce over 50 

A rabbit is still a rabbit. Even if you can classify them into 50 different groups. You can classify people into lots of different groups, but people are still people.

The only real difference I have found, is that some have blond hair, and some have red hair. If you put peroxide on my hair, it is going to come out red. On someone else, it could come out blond. Otherwise, I can not find any difference in people.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 11:23 AM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #151
The cumulative evidence for evolution (and an old Earth) 

Perhaps you would like to explain to us what evolutionary theory has to do with the earth.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 11:32 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #155

A rabbit is still a rabbit. Even if you can classify them into 50 different groups. You can classify people into lots of different groups, but people are still people.

The only real difference I have found, is that some have blond hair, and some have red hair. If you put peroxide on my hair, it is going to come out red. On someone else, it could come out blond. Otherwise, I can not find any difference in people.

Do you know how species get classified? Because that is what I'm talking about. Not variation within a species (as would be the case with humans). But different species (of rabbits).

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 11:34 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #156

Perhaps you would like to explain to us what evolutionary theory has to do with the earth.

My point to FoC was merely that the idea of an "old Earth" was not a "giant leap in the dark". It was the result of observation and experimentation over the last couple hundred years.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 11:17 AM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #147

Even you, John, previously admitted to me you don't have a problem with evolution, as long as the special creation in Gen 2 could occur.

I did not say one way or the other. The universe could be a big wind up toy, and God did not personally get involved untell He made Adam and Eve and the Garden with all the domesticated animals.

But it could not have all come into being by random chance, there had to be a blueprint, like DNA and something to carry out that blueprint, like RNA.

I don't have time now, I have to get my son to school.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 11:25 AM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #152



If you accept that a single species of rabbit can produce over 50 species of rabbits, then you accept speciation and macroevolution (as per defined in biology). You might put an invisible "limit" on how much specation you accept, but in biology, a) no such limit appears to exist, and b) there's no term to describe such a limit.

And in the end its just a confusing little play on words that amounts to nothing as a rabbit will never be anything but a rabbit.