-
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.
Evolution for Drotar
- Thread starter lucaspa
- Start date
D
Drotar
Guest
Well, as for the horse issue, the pictures did not load up.
I am told that the climate was different for each of the horses, so that they survived better in a marshy environment over a field, etc.
We do not know for certain that the environment was this or that at this time. In fact, that claim was probably used to support and substiate the evolutionary benefit of the horse. There is no way that we could have assumed that at certain time frames, the horses lived in X environment. The claim was more likely than not DEDUCED.
In other words, claiming that the horses have one less toe to support the new climate condition in that example is most likely, prove me wrong, circular reasoning. We see fossils of a horse with three toes, and then one with two, and assume that the conditions changed from marshy to dry. OTHER PEOPLE then apply the fact that the environment changed to substantiate the loss of a toe. We then discover that climate changes led to that evolutionary change. -well they would, wouldn't they?
Don't put off eating to discuss this. But when you're ready come back. What are you cooking by the way, or am I being nosy?
As for the weed situation, let me tell you. Let me be honest. I don't know. I'll have to make a note of that. That weed example was just that- an example. Meaning that there are others like it in nature. Meaning that the flaw lies in my personal interpretation of the facts. I've got to do more researching on that topic then.
I'm still learning y'know. TTYL Jesus loves you!
I am told that the climate was different for each of the horses, so that they survived better in a marshy environment over a field, etc.
We do not know for certain that the environment was this or that at this time. In fact, that claim was probably used to support and substiate the evolutionary benefit of the horse. There is no way that we could have assumed that at certain time frames, the horses lived in X environment. The claim was more likely than not DEDUCED.
In other words, claiming that the horses have one less toe to support the new climate condition in that example is most likely, prove me wrong, circular reasoning. We see fossils of a horse with three toes, and then one with two, and assume that the conditions changed from marshy to dry. OTHER PEOPLE then apply the fact that the environment changed to substantiate the loss of a toe. We then discover that climate changes led to that evolutionary change. -well they would, wouldn't they?
Don't put off eating to discuss this. But when you're ready come back. What are you cooking by the way, or am I being nosy?
As for the weed situation, let me tell you. Let me be honest. I don't know. I'll have to make a note of that. That weed example was just that- an example. Meaning that there are others like it in nature. Meaning that the flaw lies in my personal interpretation of the facts. I've got to do more researching on that topic then.
I'm still learning y'know. TTYL Jesus loves you!
Upvote
0
D
Drotar
Guest
By recognizing that evolution is a result of allele frequencies and reproduction, and not use and disuse, I would have thought that I was NOT seeing the cartoon version.
Upvote
0
J
Jet Black
Guest
you couldn't see the attached image in the bottom left of the OP?
http://christianforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1592
http://christianforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1592
Upvote
0
J
Jet Black
Guest
the reason that this has occured is by the by. the issue is that there is a drastic change in the feet of horses over time. from 5 toes to 1.
chinese home style chicken and noodles and stuff btw
chinese home style chicken and noodles and stuff btw
Upvote
0
J
Jet Black
Guest
strange. basically it is a series of pictures showing horses feet as they used to be a couple of million years ago and some as they are now, showing how the extra toes hav disappeared.
tbh I will let you carry this on with lucaspa. I know the generals, but I don't have any specific sources to cite really, as this isn't my field.
tbh I will let you carry this on with lucaspa. I know the generals, but I don't have any specific sources to cite really, as this isn't my field.
Upvote
0
Allow me to stray off of the current subject and state some information, then you may go back to your interesting conversation.
Now, you may have gone over all of this alrady, but I'm too tired to read all 11 pages.
First: Spontaneous Generation - a main factor in the theory of evolution.
The law of biogenesis, living things can only come from living things. This was proven by Pasteur's experiments with meat and fruit flies. Pasteur's experiments, which destroyed the old theory of spontaneous generation, are listed in most science textbooks as a major triumph of modern science. However, a new idea emerged called "abiogenesis" which states that spontaneous generation does occur, but that only the simplest life forms arose from nonliving substances. In one breath we a told that spontaneous generation is impossible, but in the next breath we are told that, since life had to start somehow and since God is ruled out, it must have evolved from nonliving substances. Therefor, we are told that living substances arose from nonliving substances, despite the evidence to the contrary. Experiments have been performed which attempted to reproduce abiogenesis (also called chemical evolution). With these experiments, scientists fully expected to duplicate evolution, but they failed. These experiments did produce some simple comounds that are similar to ones found in living things, but nothing living has ever been produced from nonliving matter in the laboratory, nor have any compounds been produced in the laboratory that even begin to approach the complexity of the structures found in living cells. If scientists in wellequipped laboratories cannot produce life, it seems highly improbable that nature alone could have produced it.
Second - Body parts
Evolution supports the theory that certain types of lizards or lizard-like creatures evolved into birds. However, a leg which evolves into a wing, would be a worthless leg long before it becomes a useful wing. Another thing, vestigial organs, which many evolutionists claimed proved evolution exists, do not even exist. In truth humans have no organs which are not being used or that are left over from previous forms. One organ previously thought to be a vestigial organ is the appendix. Every year, scientists learn more about what each organ does and have proven that the human body actually does use and need the appendix.
Third - The missing link
Scientists believed that over time, science would prove to find the "missing links" in evolution. However, the further that science advances, the larger those "links" become. If evolution had occured, there would be millions of fossils showing various stages in the gradual transition of kinds of organisms into different kinds, however, none have been found. To attempt to explain the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, some evolutionists have abandoned Darwin's teaching of gradual evolution in favor of a newer idea called the "punctuated equilibrium hypothesis." Whereas Darwin taught that new organisms came as a result of the gradual accumulation of minute changes over millions of years, proponents of puntuated equilibrium suggests that evolution occurs in sudden spurts, followed by long periods without noticeable change. According to this idea, new kinds of organisms arise as a result of dramatic enviromental changes, which bring about rapid genetic changes in small groups of animals and plants. Some advocates go even futher, stating that evolution occurs as a result of drastic genentic restructurings called macromutations that suddenly change one kind of creature into another. Instead of changing one organism into another by thousands of tiny changes, the macromutation hypothesis calls for sweeping rearrangments of the genetic code to produce a dramtically different, but fully functional, organism in one generation. No example of such a drastic change has ever been observed, either in nature or in the laboratory.
Fourth - Evolutionary tree
The evolutionary tree has no trunk. One of the serious contradictions between the facts of the fossil record and the hypothesis of evolution is known as the "Cambrian explosion." Evolutionists believe that plants and animals evolved from simple, single-celled creatures. If this were true, there should be a gradual progression of extremly simple cell colonies to more "advanced" creatures, with a gradual increase in variety and diversity. But the fossil record contains no such progression. When geologists study Camfrian rocks, they find in the fossil record a sudden outburst of living things of great variety, showing no evidence of evolution. Practically empty "Precambrian" rocks suddenly give way to "Cambrian" rocks teeming with many representatives of every major animal phylum in existence today, plus other phyla that are now extinct.
I'll post more after I sleep and am clear headed.
(Assuming I'm even allowed in this topic in the morning)
Now, you may have gone over all of this alrady, but I'm too tired to read all 11 pages.
First: Spontaneous Generation - a main factor in the theory of evolution.
The law of biogenesis, living things can only come from living things. This was proven by Pasteur's experiments with meat and fruit flies. Pasteur's experiments, which destroyed the old theory of spontaneous generation, are listed in most science textbooks as a major triumph of modern science. However, a new idea emerged called "abiogenesis" which states that spontaneous generation does occur, but that only the simplest life forms arose from nonliving substances. In one breath we a told that spontaneous generation is impossible, but in the next breath we are told that, since life had to start somehow and since God is ruled out, it must have evolved from nonliving substances. Therefor, we are told that living substances arose from nonliving substances, despite the evidence to the contrary. Experiments have been performed which attempted to reproduce abiogenesis (also called chemical evolution). With these experiments, scientists fully expected to duplicate evolution, but they failed. These experiments did produce some simple comounds that are similar to ones found in living things, but nothing living has ever been produced from nonliving matter in the laboratory, nor have any compounds been produced in the laboratory that even begin to approach the complexity of the structures found in living cells. If scientists in wellequipped laboratories cannot produce life, it seems highly improbable that nature alone could have produced it.
Second - Body parts
Evolution supports the theory that certain types of lizards or lizard-like creatures evolved into birds. However, a leg which evolves into a wing, would be a worthless leg long before it becomes a useful wing. Another thing, vestigial organs, which many evolutionists claimed proved evolution exists, do not even exist. In truth humans have no organs which are not being used or that are left over from previous forms. One organ previously thought to be a vestigial organ is the appendix. Every year, scientists learn more about what each organ does and have proven that the human body actually does use and need the appendix.
Third - The missing link
Scientists believed that over time, science would prove to find the "missing links" in evolution. However, the further that science advances, the larger those "links" become. If evolution had occured, there would be millions of fossils showing various stages in the gradual transition of kinds of organisms into different kinds, however, none have been found. To attempt to explain the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, some evolutionists have abandoned Darwin's teaching of gradual evolution in favor of a newer idea called the "punctuated equilibrium hypothesis." Whereas Darwin taught that new organisms came as a result of the gradual accumulation of minute changes over millions of years, proponents of puntuated equilibrium suggests that evolution occurs in sudden spurts, followed by long periods without noticeable change. According to this idea, new kinds of organisms arise as a result of dramatic enviromental changes, which bring about rapid genetic changes in small groups of animals and plants. Some advocates go even futher, stating that evolution occurs as a result of drastic genentic restructurings called macromutations that suddenly change one kind of creature into another. Instead of changing one organism into another by thousands of tiny changes, the macromutation hypothesis calls for sweeping rearrangments of the genetic code to produce a dramtically different, but fully functional, organism in one generation. No example of such a drastic change has ever been observed, either in nature or in the laboratory.
Fourth - Evolutionary tree
The evolutionary tree has no trunk. One of the serious contradictions between the facts of the fossil record and the hypothesis of evolution is known as the "Cambrian explosion." Evolutionists believe that plants and animals evolved from simple, single-celled creatures. If this were true, there should be a gradual progression of extremly simple cell colonies to more "advanced" creatures, with a gradual increase in variety and diversity. But the fossil record contains no such progression. When geologists study Camfrian rocks, they find in the fossil record a sudden outburst of living things of great variety, showing no evidence of evolution. Practically empty "Precambrian" rocks suddenly give way to "Cambrian" rocks teeming with many representatives of every major animal phylum in existence today, plus other phyla that are now extinct.
I'll post more after I sleep and am clear headed.
(Assuming I'm even allowed in this topic in the morning)
Upvote
0
Just to point out, since you listed an AIG article. AIG accepts Speciation, do a search on AIG about that weed.
They do fall back on their false version of "Macro Evolution" however, they do accept Speciation.
They now seem to have given up on their false version of "macro evolution" and are now claiming "no new information". In otherwords, Speciation can occur, but evolution can not introduce any "new information." However, its hard to get them to define what they mean by "information." But it doesnt quite matter, as new information can come from Evolution.
For information about how new information can come about from evolution, there is this thread by lucaspa,
http://www.christianforums.com/t52353
I would also reference the "nylon bug" thread. Its long, but it shows how it gained new information.
They do fall back on their false version of "Macro Evolution" however, they do accept Speciation.
They now seem to have given up on their false version of "macro evolution" and are now claiming "no new information". In otherwords, Speciation can occur, but evolution can not introduce any "new information." However, its hard to get them to define what they mean by "information." But it doesnt quite matter, as new information can come from Evolution.
For information about how new information can come about from evolution, there is this thread by lucaspa,
http://www.christianforums.com/t52353
I would also reference the "nylon bug" thread. Its long, but it shows how it gained new information.
Drotar said:
Upvote
0
Etharia: Yes, please start a new thread, as there are many misconceptions you have, and I dont want to clutter this one anymore than I already have.
John: please dont troll this thread.
John: please dont troll this thread.
Upvote
0
D
Drotar
Guest
Yes, that I have observed.
AIG does support transpeciation. The very link I gave was that of an explanation of how the different bears came about.
Like I said, I don't claim to be an expert defender of YEC. I'm a student, still learning, and I accept that I do not have all the answers. As I continue to learn, I'll have my opinions more thought out and organized. I recognize my limits here.
That is why I posted the thread "Questions for Lucaspa" and not "Objections for Lucaspa". I am specifically wondering a few things about carbon-dating, but also about how dominant and recessive alleles tie into the theory. Every trait, with the exception of some rare occurences, are either dominant or recessive. What if the new trait is recessive? If the trait was recessive, it would probably, over time, return become less and less prominent right? TTYL Jesus loves you!
AIG does support transpeciation. The very link I gave was that of an explanation of how the different bears came about.
Like I said, I don't claim to be an expert defender of YEC. I'm a student, still learning, and I accept that I do not have all the answers. As I continue to learn, I'll have my opinions more thought out and organized. I recognize my limits here.
That is why I posted the thread "Questions for Lucaspa" and not "Objections for Lucaspa". I am specifically wondering a few things about carbon-dating, but also about how dominant and recessive alleles tie into the theory. Every trait, with the exception of some rare occurences, are either dominant or recessive. What if the new trait is recessive? If the trait was recessive, it would probably, over time, return become less and less prominent right? TTYL Jesus loves you!
Upvote
0
One thing im curious about, that only slightly relates to this thread.
Since you are a YEC, do you believe a large global flood happend?
Since you are a YEC, do you believe a large global flood happend?
Upvote
0
ok.
This is again, semi off topic, but here is something I wrote for a post awhile back, about YEC creationism being science, and the predictions it would make.
http://www.geocities.com/arikayx/Creationismasscience.html
(Yeah, i found it easier to put it up on a webpage than copy and paste the entire thing everytime. )
This is again, semi off topic, but here is something I wrote for a post awhile back, about YEC creationism being science, and the predictions it would make.
http://www.geocities.com/arikayx/Creationismasscience.html
(Yeah, i found it easier to put it up on a webpage than copy and paste the entire thing everytime.
)Drotar said:
Upvote
0
D
Drotar
Guest
OK, so here I am confused.
You support the theory of a world-wide flood?
I have no quarrel with that, but I'm curious what you believe.
You support the theory of a world-wide flood?
I have no quarrel with that, but I'm curious what you believe.
Upvote
0
J
Jet Black
Guest
I don't think he does... basically that site makes predictions based on the flood model... predictions that have not been seen.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
