Evolution/Creation on Trial

[AV1611VET]

Heh. Wiener jokes.

What???

I don't get it.

(Or do I want to?)

 

[stevevw]

Scenario: A store manager goes to get some Twinkies for a quick snack and, finding the Twinkies sold out says, "No more Twinkies on this shelf anymore."

Conclusion: The store manager hates Twinkies.

Question: Is the conclusion founded?

Perhaps I should have clarified the anger that Jesus felt. I'm talking about the anger he had towards the traders who were having a market in the Temple which was His Fathers house. There can be justified anger. Jesus was angry for an injustice and a lack of respect. From His point of view He could see the importance of what was happening. He knew that having traders in the house of God represented. So there was no malice in what Jesus was experiencing and justified anger is not a sin.

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps I should have clarified the anger that Jesus felt. I'm talking about the anger he had towards the traders who were having a market in the Temple which was His Fathers house. There can be justified anger. Jesus was angry for an injustice and a lack of respect. From His point of view He could see the importance of what was happening. He knew that having traders in the house of God represented. So there was no malice in what Jesus was experiencing and justified anger is not a sin.

AMEN!

 

[stevevw]

I think this is a great and detailed rebuttal to the mythical processes touted by the religion of evolution and shows it clearly for what it is, a blind faith without anything substantial to support it. Of course, they would say that there is so much evidence to support it that anyone who doesn't believe it is either stupid, a liar or relying on sources that are one or both of those. However, when you ask evolutionists to come up with some hard evidence to support their claims, they can't produce it. It's a bit like the dark energy/matter that must exist because if it didn't, the so-called Big Bang would fall flat and yet we can't see it, measure it, smell it, taste it or perceive it in any way, but it apparently makes up about 96% of all reality! No doubt someone will say "Ah, what about gravity?" Well, we can test the effects of that by experiment and we can prove its effects, but the dark energy/matter idea is just that, an idea. Then there's the idea of everything in the universe miraculously (am I allowed to use that word here?) springing into existence all on its own from nothing (oh, I forgot, it's not nothing, it's called a Singularity I understand, but I wonder where that came from and where did the thing that caused the thing that formed the Singularity come from? And where did the thing that caused the....?). Didn't one evolutionist say something about only being allowed to invoke the tooth fairy once?

What about multiverses as well. They are promoted to address the finely tuned universe for life. By having millions and millions of parallel universes/worlds it then makes our finely tuned one seem not so special. We just happened to end up in the right one. So scientists can appeal to far fetched ideas to explain our reality but we cant include God because thats to unreal.

 

[Shemjaza]

What???

I don't get it.

(Or do I want to?)

Wyoming
Institute of
Education and
Nuclear
Energy
Research

 

[AV1611VET]

Wyoming
Institute of
Education and
Nuclear
Energy
Research

Oh, okay ... thanks.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think to much is read into selection being not random.

You ignore the fact that evolution is not random.

In fact there is doubt whether Darwinian evolution is capable of doing this in the first place. Its more likely that any genetic info that is needed to add new variety or abilities to creatures is already there or gained through HGT.

Evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

Why in the thousands of generations of fly evolution tests in labs have we not seen a fly become something else besides a fly.

There are are 75 genera with a total of 4,000 species of fruit flies. You do realize this, don' t you?

Also, our common ancestor with bears was a mammal. Bears are a mammal. We are a mammal. All that time, and all those species are still mammals, and yet it is evolution. Do you understand why that is?

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't care if he burns the store down.

Does he hate Twinkies ... yes or no?

God loves Twinkies, but he hates thespians.

 

[pshun2404]

There are are 75 genera with a total of 4,000 species of fruit flies. You do realize this, don' t you?

Also, our common ancestor with bears was a mammal. Bears are a mammal. We are a mammal. All that time, and all those species are still mammals, and yet it is evolution. Do you understand why that is?

Speciation only produces variety of the same creature. Original species of bears have become all the variety of bears we now see. Original pairs of humans have become all the variety of humans we now see. Original pairs of fruit flies can become a whole variety of the same kind of fruit flies.

 

[Split Rock]

Speciation only produces variety of the same creature. Original species of bears have become all the variety of bears we now see. Original pairs of humans have become all the variety of humans we now see. Original pairs of fruit flies can become a whole variety of the same kind of fruit flies.

So, what is wrong with original pairs of primates becoming a whole variety of primates? Or mammals? Or chordates? Or animals? One what basis do you claim bears and fruit flies produce varieties of the "same creature," but not primates?

 

[Loudmouth]

Speciation only produces variety of the same creature.

Exactly. That is what we should see if evolution is true. Bears are mammals. We are mammals. Our common ancestor shared with bears was a mammal. We are a variety of mammal just as bears are.

Original species of bears have become all the variety of bears we now see. Original pairs of humans have become all the variety of humans we now see. Original pairs of fruit flies can become a whole variety of the same kind of fruit flies.

Humans, bears, and fruit flies are all bilateria, as was their common ancestor. They are all varieties of bilateria. From the time of that common ancestor, it has been bilateria producing bilateria.

http://tolweb.org/Bilateria/2459

 

[pshun2404]

So, what is wrong with original pairs of primates becoming a whole variety of primates? Or mammals? Or chordates? Or animals? One what basis do you claim bears and fruit flies produce varieties of the "same creature," but not primates?

Fruit flies remain fruit flies not horse flies or house flies...

Bears remain bears just produce variety as their genetic code was designed....

We are not comparing insects versus chordates...I am saying speciation only produces variety and does not produce new creatures. In over 100 years there is only evidence for this not for the other. As a scientifically oriented person one should remain objective. One should not interpret the data to fit the theory, but let the data produce the theory.

 

[pshun2404]

Exactly. That is what we should see if evolution is true. Bears are mammals. We are mammals. Our common ancestor shared with bears was a mammal. We are a variety of mammal just as bears are.



Humans, bears, and fruit flies are all bilateria, as was their common ancestor. They are all varieties of bilateria. From the time of that common ancestor, it has been bilateria producing bilateria.

http://tolweb.org/Bilateria/2459

Sadly though if we let the theory interpret the data we go amiss....there is zero evidence for a common ancestor...just because one thing follows another does not necessitate that the latter came FROM the former (that is an invalid derivation)

 

[sfs]

We are not comparing insects versus chordates...I am saying speciation only produces variety and does not produce new creatures.

Please define "creature". Because I'm pretty sure that new species are new creatures -- a kind of living thing that didn't exist before.

As a scientifically oriented person one should remain objective. One should not interpret the data to fit the theory, but let the data produce the theory.

Oddly enough, real scientifically oriented people (i.e scientists) concluded 150 years ago that the evidence showed overwhelmingly that common descent was true, and their conviction has only grown with increasing evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sadly though if we let the theory interpret the data we go amiss....there is zero evidence for a common ancestor...

What would you accept as evidence for common ancestry?

What features would a fossil need in order to evidence common ancestry?

What genetic marker would two species need in order to evidence common ancestry?

What exactly are you looking for?

just because one thing follows another does not necessitate that the latter came FROM the former (that is an invalid derivation)

Then what would be a correct derivation? What are you doing to determine what is and isn't evidence of common ancestry?

 

[Loudmouth]

Fruit flies remain fruit flies not horse flies or house flies...

Just as we should see if evolution is true.

Bears remain bears just produce variety as their genetic code was designed....

They should remain bears if evolution is true. What are you not understanding about this?

Also, where is your evidence that the genetic code was designed?

We are not comparing insects versus chordates...

We are comparing bilateria to bilateria. They are the same type of creature.

I am saying speciation only produces variety and does not produce new creatures.

That's all that needs to happen in order for macroevolution to occur.

 

[[serious]]

Fruit flies remain fruit flies not horse flies or house flies...

Bears remain bears just produce variety as their genetic code was designed....

We are not comparing insects versus chordates...I am saying speciation only produces variety and does not produce new creatures. In over 100 years there is only evidence for this not for the other. As a scientifically oriented person one should remain objective. One should not interpret the data to fit the theory, but let the data produce the theory.

Which is exactly what evolution says.

A eukaryote (has a nucleus) might develop a true multicellular colony organism, but it's still a eukaryote.
A multicellular organism might develop bilateral symmetry, but it's a multicellular eukaryote.
A bilaterally symmetrical multicellular eukaryote might develop a hollow nerve cord (vertebrate) but it's still a A bilaterally symmetrical multicellular eukaryote
a vertebrate bilaterally symmetrical multicellular eukaryote might develop a calcified internal skeleton, but it's still, well, you get the picture.
Go through that same thing with:
a jaw
4 limbs
lungs
amniotic eggs
hair
opposable thumbs
bipedal locomotion
etc.

 

[Loudmouth]

Which is exactly what evolution says.

A eukaryote (has a nucleus) might develop a true multicellular colony organism, but it's still a eukaryote.
A multicellular organism might develop bilateral symmetry, but it's a multicellular eukaryote.
A bilaterally symmetrical multicellular eukaryote might develop a hollow nerve cord (vertebrate) but it's still a A bilaterally symmetrical multicellular eukaryote
a vertebrate bilaterally symmetrical multicellular eukaryote might develop a calcified internal skeleton, but it's still, well, you get the picture.
Go through that same thing with:
a jaw
4 limbs
lungs
amniotic eggs
hair
opposable thumbs
bipedal locomotion
etc.

Exactly. We have yet another creationist who argues that we should not see a tree like structure of shared features if evolution is true. It's as if they learned about evolution in Bizzaro world where everything is the opposite.

In the real world, you don't evolve off of your evolutionary branch. You stay attached to it. I still don't understand why creationists can't seem to understand this simple concept.

 

[Split Rock]

Fruit flies remain fruit flies not horse flies or house flies...

Why is that? They are all still Flies are they not? Flies remain flies. How does this violate your reasoning?

Bears remain bears just produce variety as their genetic code was designed....

And Flies remain flies just producing variety as their genetic code was designed .. seems to fit your reasoning once again.

We are not comparing insects versus chordates...I am saying speciation only produces variety and does not produce new creatures. In over 100 years there is only evidence for this not for the other. As a scientifically oriented person one should remain objective. One should not interpret the data to fit the theory, but let the data produce the theory.

What is a "new creature" in this case? They are new species, but you say not a new creature. I can say primates only produce variety and do not produce new creatures... and that would fit quite well with your reasoning.

The ones who interpret the data to fit the theory are you guys. Special Creation comes first.. fitting the data to it comes last. Pot meet kettle.