Evolution true or false?

[Hydra009]

If evolution is what God used to create everything...then wouldn't Genesis and the bible be void.

Nope, Genesis wouldn't be void. It just wouldn't be the literal history of the world.

God said he created everything in 6 days and on the 7th he rested.

Actually, the hebrew could also indicate longer time frames. Plus, there's the common phrase that 10,000 years to us humans is only a day to God.

Everything else in the bible is perfectly clear and acurate.

...to those who believe that the bible is perfectly clear and accurate.

If God meant for us to know it was millions of years of evolution, wouldn't he have put that in the bible?

Good question. I don't know. A lot of the science in the Bible seems to be the wisdom of the day. My guess is He would trust us to figure it out by ourselves.

On the 3rd day God created the vegetation....how many millions of years do you think the plants would last before the sun was created?

Genesis 1.3 - "Let there be light!" preceded the 3rd day.

If you are a Christian, you must believe that the bible is the true word of God (the infallable God).

Not necessarily. Some Christians will admit that the Bible was written by fallible people who were inspired by God. They believe that the Bible is true, but they do not think every word is the infallible word of God.

So would this mean that God made a mistake in the first book of the bible?

Possibly. The more likely explanation is that the mistake is on the side of the fallible interpreter.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

If evolution is what God used to create everything...then wouldn't Genesis and the bible be void. God said he created everything in 6 days and on the 7th he rested. Everything else in the bible is perfectly clear and acurate. If God meant for us to know it was millions of years of evolution, wouldn't he have put that in the bible? On the 3rd day God created the vegetation....how many millions of years do you think the plants would last before the sun was created? If you are a Christian, you must believe that the bible is the true word of God (the infallable God). So would this mean that God made a mistake in the first book of the bible?

No, of course it would not invalidate Genesis, just as the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun did not invalidate Genesis even though many thought it might at the time.



Second, the Word of God as referenced in the Bible is not the Bible but is Jesus. Do not mix up the two, this leads one into making the Bible an idol, and hold it above God’s own works, such as His creation.



TE’s do not ignore the Bible, the just do not ignore God’s other works, such as nature and creation.



I hope you will open your eyes to the works of God and not just listen to those who would attempt to control you with their flawed ideas about how the Bible is to be read and how it somehow trumps God’s own works.

 

[gluadys]

This is the "evolution is pure chance" fallacy.

According to my understanding, the strength of natural selection slows down evolution, while the amount chance plays in it increases evolution.

No. Natural selection will tend to "slow down" evolution when a species is well adapted to its ecological niche, as in such situations, changes to the species will not likely be beneficial, so selection will be in favour of the status quo.

But by the same token when a species is moving into a new environment (or its environment is changing), then natural selection will act to "speed up" the evolution of new traits that are adaptive in the new situation.

This varying rate of evolution is one of the basic ideas of punctuated equilibrium.

 

[gluadys]

Natural selection actually removes systems from the gene pool. It has not yet been observed to add anything to any creature or plant. So I agree with you here.

That is why we should not equate "natural selection" with "evolution". Natural selection is an important part of the evolutionary process, but it is not the whole story. The "addition" has to come first, then be selected in preference to the earlier form.

 

[gluadys]

When you say evolutionary speciation, what else is there to drive speciation than random mutation?

Random mutation plus natural selection or plus genetic drift or some other selective process. Evolution is always at least a two-step process. The creationist tactic is to look at each step separately, observe (correctly) that on its own it does not explain evolution and then declare that evolution cannot happen.

That is rather like saying "blue is not green and yellow is not green, therefore the combination of blue and yellow cannot produce green."

 

[gluadys]

I can't resist!!!!! no!!!!!!!!!!! Don't
respond!!!!!!!!!!!!! no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! uhg ok I give up I have to post
I can't help it I'm weak, and I love debate.

gluadys,

You seem to know a lot about evotution. Before I debate on what you
said about my post I would like to clear one thing up. I have always
iterpetated(bad spelling) evolution as being all of the living creatures
we know today evolving from a onr celled organism over time. Under this
pretence I would imagian that evolution and adaptation are two completly
different things. Is this definition correct, incorrect, or partial.
Please tell me because I don't want to be one to misinform. Thanks.
p.s. I'm a female.

Evolution is an umbrella term which includes variation, natural
selection and adaptation. Natural selection is the process which leads
to adaptation. Adaptation is the result of natural selection.

Variation is the raw material which natural selection works on. So you
can diagram it as follows:

Input---------> Process------------>Result
Variation------>Natural Selection---->Adaptation

Everything from input to result is species change or evolution.

In fact, we can extend this basic outline in two directions.

What is the source of variation? Mutation. And there are several mechanisms which change DNA sequences, so at the front end we can put:

Input-------------->Process--------->Result
Mutation/Variation->Natural Selection->Adaptation

We can also extend the line past adaptation (which is an adaptive change in a single species) and start noticing that over time, more adaptations are piled on top of the earlier ones, so that you get a sequence of adapted forms. Eventually, if you compare the most recent form with the earliest form, it is clear you have a new species.

So now we have:

Input------------->Process--------->Result1 ----->repetition of sequence many times->Result 2

Mutation/Variation->Natural Selection->Adapted species->more adaptations-------->New species (after many adaptations).

The most interesting results come when a species breaks up into separate groups so that the two sub-groups do not mate with each other. When this
happens, they no longer share the variations and adaptations they
acquire with the other group, so that each group adapts in different
ways. Eventually, they are so dissimilar to each other that they become
different species. This is quite common, has been observed in nature
and replicated in the laboratory.

Science does not suggest that all species are descended from a single
organism if by "organism" you mean a single individual. The theory of
common descent is that we have all descended from a single species of
organisms. This is not so much a pre-supposition of evolution as a
logical deduction. Furthermore much evidence points to this conclusion
as well. However, as we are now aware of much lateral transfer of genetic material, the picture of the root of the tree of life is becoming more complex.

Nevertheless, we can say that however complex the relationships among unicellular species, all multi-cellular species have evolved from unicellular eukaryotic ancestors. And it looks very much like each major group of multicellular species (plants, fungi, animals) originated once.

 

[gluadys]

Greeting to everyone,

This is my 1st post, so be gentle. I used to buy into the evolution theory, but now I look back and can't believe how anyone could ever believe it.

I will be as gentle as I can, for I am your sister in Christ and believe in God and creation. But I do believe that evolution is the flip side of creation when it comes to the diversity of life forms.

I take it that you "bought into" evolution theory because your school teachers and textbooks did, but that you never really investigated it much. This is the usual scenario with people who "convert" to creationism. Creationism can seem to make a lot of sense if your grasp of evolution is vague and not backed up with knowledge of why scientists have come to this conclusion, and what evidence they are relying on. When you study creationism you learn about a lot of "problems" with evolution, but you don't learn the whole story. The "problems" are not set in context, and often countervailing information is omitted.

I don't know how or why God did things the way he did, but I do know that the God that can create matter from nothing isn't so stupid that he can't create things exactly as he wanted 6000 years ago.

Agreed. This debate has never been about what God CAN do. It is about what God DID. I believe God chose to create species through a process of evolution. God could have done it differently, but the evidence says that evolution was God's choice.

Maybe he wants the world to look older, maybe its not (there seems to be evidence on both sides)

Not when you really look into it. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of an old earth in an older universe.

But evolution cannot explain how (even in millions of years) the complexity of life can happen.

Well, yes it can. Or are you talking about the origin of the first life. That is a different topic and not relevant to evolution. No matter how life originates (including by divine fiat) evolution is still the way life diverges and diversifies into many species.

I wonder who decided that we needed vision to survive.

Evolution is a mindless process, so it doesn't decide anything. But a theistic evolutionist would say that God decided we needed vision and arranged for it to evolve.

We must have at one point had no vision...no eyes...no wiring of the eyes to the brain...etc....so if we have never known vision of any kind, who decided that we needed to see....and how many millions of years would it take to develop this sight that we knew nothing about.

Depends on who you mean by "we". If you are talking about humans, vision did not begin with humans. We inherited our eyes from our proto-human ancestors, and they from their primate ancestors and they from their early mammalian ancestors, and they from their reptilian/amphibian/fish ancestors and fish from still earlier ancestors. However, the eye in these ancestors was quite different and changed over time to become a human eye. That's evolution.

Then on top of that...to evolve to get a second identical eye....

LOL. This statement is proof you know nothing about how evolution works. The development of both eyes is regulated by the same genes, so they both evolve together.

There are so may amazing things in the world to point to a designer. Why can simple birds fly (completely by random accident...must suck to be bird waiting millions of years for random mutations to add up to perfect flight),

Not at all. You can have a pretty good life as a feathered dinosaur.

Believing in evolution, or that God used it is wrong. Evolution is taking God out of the world.

Evolution is not atheism. Nothing in evolution removes God from the world.

..I saw the birth of my daughter...there I saw the beauty of God...my daughter is the work of God, not millions of years of accidents leading to her birth.

Actually, there were quite a few "accidents" leading to her birth.
1. You were born.
2. Her mother/father was born.
3. The two of you met.
4. You fell in love.
5. You had sex at a time when conception was possible. (unless you watched the calendar so that it was not an "accident".)
6. Sperm and ova were formed in which genetic factors from your parents and parents-in-law were randomly sorted.
7. One out of millions of sperm penetrated and fertilized one egg.

Just looking at the last two factors, the odds that it would be your daughter that was born rather than a different child is one in trillions.

Now, I also believe your daughter is a work of God. But if God can and does create each and every one of use through the randomness of reproductive sortation and fertilization, why not also create species through evolution?

If you believe in the bible and the God of the bible....then to say that God is too dumb to get it right the 1st time...then you don't believe in the true God of the universe.

Well, theistic evolutionists don't see it as God not getting it right the first time. We see evolution as the right way for God to accomplish his purposes.

 

[gluadys]

In my post #74 I asked...
"Give me an example of "observed" speciation, keeping in mind that "biological species" is defined as a group of organisms that are able to mate and reproduce (genetically)."

I have not recieved a response.

Well, even if you missed the earlier ones, those who responded to this post before me have inundated you with plenty of examples.

No one is debating that "adaptation" does not take place. As I pointed out earlier, we see evidence of this in ALL creatures in what I have come to understand as "micro-evolution" (sub-speciation). This is merely a switching "on" or "off" of already pre-existent genetic information and is commonly seen in species that have short life cycles in changing environments. One well documented example is "Darwins Finches" who's beaks change cyclically with the drought and monsoon conditions of the Galopegos islands. At any point in this cycle, they are still finches, capable of mating and repoducing other finches.

Yes, this particular study was of evolution within the species. You do realize, though, I hope, that each of Darwin's finches is a separate species of finch. Each mates and reproduces within its own speices, but not with the other dozen or so species.

Many examples of "macro-evolution" (speciation) that have been thrown at me over the years have been nothing more than "adaptation" within a species and not true "speciation".

You will find that each and every one of the examples you have been given meet the criteria you set out at the beginning of your post. These are all examples in which the daughter species no longer mates or reproduces with the parent species.

However, I expect that this will lead us deeper into the meaning of the term "species".

Glaudys mentioned "talkorigins.org" as a reference for his information. From that very web site we get...
"Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms."

and..
"In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used)."

Yes, I like these definitions. Note that the focus is on the range of evolutionary action. Nowhere does it suggest that there has been a change in the nature of the process. Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are phases of the same process using the same mechanisms.

Mendel showed that there are mathematically "limited" combinations of characteristics within a particular species.

Mendel did not work with evolution. He never conceived of natural selection and never tested the impact of natural selection on his results. That has been done subsequently and the results set out in the Hardy-Weinburg Law, which incorporates a fitness factor into Mendel's work on genetic inheritance. Mendel's own laws assume a static species.

This is the area I have the most problem with because this is the point of true speciation. At this point replication with another organism becomes difficult if not impossible, unless two similar organisms are mutated in a similar manner at a proximate time and place.

Not necessary at all. Evolution is a process which applies to populations, not to indivdual organisms. Changes in a single organism do not count as evolution. If a single organism were born with sufficient difference from the rest of the species as to be unable to mate, then its differences will never be passed on to offspring and never permanently enter the species gene pool.

What you need to do is get a good grasp of how a mutation (which occurs in a single cell) is transmitted first to every cell in one organism and then from that organism into the species gene pool. Evolution is only a possibility when the latter has occurred, for it is only then that you can get differential reproductive success. And all this is still micro-evolution. It takes many, many repetitions of this process to so change a species that you get to speciation (macro-evolution).

If we are to take evolution to it's ultimate conclusion, that life began from a single celled organism millions or billions of years ago, then we must also conclude that that single celled organism had to arise from non-life at some point.

Sure, but the mechanism of that process can be anything. Perhaps the first living cells were sneezed onto earth by the Cosmic Pink Unicorn. Of course, biologists are looking into a more natural process. And of course theists, including theistic evolutionists, believe God had a hand in producing life from non-life.

Whatever the mechanism by which life arose, it then began to evolve. So it doesn't matter to evolution how life got here in the first place.

Evolutionists want us to believe that life is "undirected" (other than by "natural" causes), developed by the chance alignment of the right chemicals in the right environment (Miller/Urey). Emile Borel simply enumerated that chance to show how unlikely (actually far beyond "scientifically impossible") it was. All other arenas of science depend on chance and probability to predict the outcome and reliability of hypothesis and theory. From a purely scientific standpoint, it must be included when talking about the origin of life as well.

I'm not good at math, but I do know what GIGO stands for and that's what Borel is producing. I'll let the mathematicians explain it in more detail.

I will read through these and get back.

Good reading! I look forward to your response.

 

[mrversatile48]

Hi guys!

I only have a short while, so I'll make it simple...

Romans 1:20 teaches - states - that man has no excuse for ignoring God & refusing to thank, praise & glorify Him, because "God's attributes - His invisible qualities -are clearly seen in the creation"

The famous Romans 12:1 could well be translated as, "the only reasonable, rational response to all the wonderful things God has done for us is to be 100% all-out for Jesus!"

That sounds like what God may have thought, in eagerness to share life & fellowship with all us people persons!!

He loves us passionately, wholeheartedly - & wants us to love Him like that too!

He could have been selfish & decided to enjoy life alone

But tho' He always knew that Calvary would be the cost of making humans with free will, He was eager to share, to care & to love

Why wait millions of years when the whole deal was less than a week's work for Omnipotent Almighty power?

If Dumbo Darwin Drivel were right, the whole evolutionary chain would STILL "Shake, Rattle & Roll!"

The differences between so-called adjacent links/steps of DDD's chain/ ladder would be as minute as those between adjoining frames of a movie!!

The fact we can not only tell dog from fox from wolf, but even clearly distinguish King Charles Spaniel from either Joe Cocker or Prince Harry's left jab, shows that all species of life were Designer-Made by the Most Brilliant Brain in the universe!

There are millions of missing links - at every so-called stage - that evo-fans shut their eyes to, dudes!

No 2 snowflakes..no 2 grains of sand..no 2 irises..no 2 sets of fingerprints, etc, etc, are identical!!

Look at the lush pallette of autumnal colours in the leaves of the trees & see the extravagantly exuberant handiwork of the Great Artist!!

As to learned evidence for the time span involved...

Here's the link to radiometric dating FAQ:-

http://www.answersingenesis.org/hom.../faq/dating.asp

WOW: a superb explanation/experiment account here:-

http://www.answersingenesis.org/cre...9/i2/dating.asp

& a more thorough, yet very readable, explanation of the instability/inconsistencies in radiometric dating:-

http://www.answersingenesis.org/doc...rbon_dating.asp

Before I dash off, here's 1 from a Creationist council member since 1956, so he now has nearly 50 years of intensive research into this whole controversy & argues here that creation is the only reasonable explanation of the clearly observable facts:-

http://www.creationism.org/symposium/symp2no7.htm

Before Elvis leaves the building..

Elfless has lifted the bunting..

AGAIN!!

Ian

 

[P4g4nite]

Dumbo Darwin drivel?

You know someone has a strong case when they use clever alliteration to mock their oppostion.

I vote this post be stricken from the record, and the mrversatile48 asked not to repeat the performance.

 

[aeonian_mist]

...I vote this post be stricken from the record, and the mrversatile48 asked not to repeat the performance.

I second that motion. =P

 

[Freodin]

If evolution is what God used to create everything...then wouldn't Genesis and the bible be void.

It would not be "void" - it would just have a different - non-literal - meaning.

God said he created everything in 6 days and on the 7th he rested.

Now that is a point where my position might differ even from the Theistic Evolutionist´s - though they may be close: God did not say that. It was humans who said that about God - either humans inspired by God, or humans thinking about God - but humans nontheless.

Everything else in the bible is perfectly clear and acurate. If God meant for us to know it was millions of years of evolution, wouldn't he have put that in the bible?

Sorry, but not everything in the Bible is "perfectly clear and accurate" - as is evidenced by the manifold differating opinions about many texts.
Or take the prophetic images, either from OT texts or Revelation: not "clear and accurate" at all.

But even if it was: "clear and accurate" does not mean "literally true". For example, take Jesus parables. They were definitly non "literally true" (and the were unclear enough for the disciples to ask stupid questions after ).

On the 3rd day God created the vegetation....how many millions of years do you think the plants would last before the sun was created? If you are a Christian, you must believe that the bible is the true word of God (the infallable God). So would this mean that God made a mistake in the first book of the bible?

First, as I have already stated, the Bible is not "directly written by God". It is not even "dictated by God".

So what is it then?

Well, the Bible is filled with texts that are clearly of human origin. The Psalms. The Chronicles. And the authors were not so nice as to mark their various texts with "The next book is directly dictated by God, but this chapter now is solely from my hands."
It was humans who wrote all the books of the Bible, and - inspired or not - they had their own agenda.
The first chapters of Genesis for example have a strong connection with the Babylonian pantheon. There are good reasons to assume that this special text has been written (and compiled! There is more than one text worked into what is now 'Genesis') at the time when Judaism had to compete with an overpowering Babylonian influence - and had to defend itself.
Genesis can be seen as an apologetic text, with the core meaning of "Your gods are wrong! All they represent was created by our God!".

This is, in Judaic/Christian context a "true" statement - and it doesn´t need a litteral six-day-creation as prerequisite.


So God did not make a mistake. Not even the human authors did make a mistake. (Again, from a Christian perspective).

The only mistake lies in the reader, who tries to have his interpretation dictate what the text "really" means.

 

[TheFriendlyGiant]

So if I (who understands nothing about evolution) is getting the jist of it...isn't evolution...natural selection, the strongest survive...Isn't that what Hitler was doing? Purifying the race? How can you say that Genesis (a book which Jesus himself quoted a number of times himself) may be wrong...then how does anyone believe anything in the bible...including all of the promises Jesus made. He was the very som of God...if Genesis was wrong, I doubt he would have quoted it much.

Also...if you believe we all came from a rock...then how does that tie into the creation of Adam and Eve? They are the 1st humans...or did God just make up a story about the 1st 2 people to come down from the trees. Evolution is unscriptural. So if we evolved, then we are still evolving...into what? Gods? So then aren't the apes left in the word (our apparent relatives) just un evolved humans?

The bible is the inspired word of God...If somthing is inspired by the perfect God, I think he would have the humans write it down correctly. God also said he created Adam and Eve on the 6th day and then rested on the 7th...does that mean that Adam and Eve lived for the millions of years between the 6th and 7th day.God also said the 7th day was to be made holy. So are we supposed to work the 1st 6 days and then take the rest of our life off?

I may no little about the smallest details of evolution, but I believe what the Bible tells me. The bible says that God created the world and everything in it in 6 days...and rested on the 7th. Evolution contradicts the bible....therfore contradicts Gods word.

 

[gluadys]

I second that motion. =P

Me three! His inane and insulting spamming is an annoying distraction that adds nothing of value to the debate. I hope nobody chooses to dignify his intervention with a response.

 

[mrversatile48]

Dumbo Darwin drivel?

You know someone has a strong case when they use clever alliteration to mock their oppostion.

I vote this post be stricken from the record, and the mrversatile48 asked not to repeat the performance.

Evo's case is SOOOOOOOO weak...

sooooooooooo easily disproved...


they try their LEVEL WORST to CENSOR anyone who exposes the utter folly of choosing to trust mere mortal men rather than the Almighty, All-Knowing Creator

Get a life..

ETERNAL life...

thru' the Lord Jesus Christ..

the 1-&-only Saviour

God bless!

Ian

 

[WaZoO]

Evolutionists are not all atheists...

 

[Freodin]

So if I (who understands nothing about evolution) is getting the jist of it...isn't evolution...natural selection, the strongest survive...Isn't that what Hitler was doing? Purifying the race? How can you say that Genesis (a book which Jesus himself quoted a number of times himself) may be wrong...then how does anyone believe anything in the bible...including all of the promises Jesus made. He was the very som of God...if Genesis was wrong, I doubt he would have quoted it much.

1. Evolution is a scientific explanation for what is observed in nature. It is NOT a guideline of how humans should behave.

Evolution basically does nothing but state that a) lifeforms change and b)a change that is advantageous in a certain enviroment will be preserved in a species.

Nowhere does Evolution state that he who kills all the rest wins the game.

2. Did you read my last post? Genesis is not "wrong" - it is only not a literal description of how the various lifeforms on earth was formed. It is, in different theological ways, "true" - and it is quite possible that Jesus quoted it in this way.
It is also possible that Jesus quoted it in this way because he knew that his audience believed it in this literal way, and it wasn´t necessary for his message to change this view (You will notice that he didn´t tell them about modern medicine or production techniques either).
Or it possible that Jesus himself, being a 100% human being of his time, told from the knowledge of his time.

Also...if you believe we all came from a rock...then how does that tie into the creation of Adam and Eve? They are the 1st humans...or did God just make up a story about the 1st 2 people to come down from the trees.

There it is again - the strawman. I don´t believe we all came from a rock. This is a non-sensical and emotional loaded position, and why else do you use it but to show "See, how stupid must this guy be to believe such a ****!".

Adam and Eve can be explained (and their names imply this!) as metaphorical figures, representing humanity as a whole.

Evolution is unscriptural. So if we evolved, then we are still evolving...into what? Gods? So then aren't the apes left in the word (our apparent relatives) just un evolved humans?

No. The next strawmen.
1.) We are still evolving. Everything that is alive is evolving - it cannot escape it.
But what we are evolving into is unknown (if you follow the Atheistic version) or only known to God (if you follow the theistic version).
2.) Evolution does not have a goal. Evolution does not look into the future and thinks "This is what it should look like."
Humans are humans today, because over many generations, the treats that make us humans have been shown to be an advantage in getting offspring.
And the apes of today are in the same way apes today. They are as evolved as we are - just for a different style of life. Apes are really good at being apes!

The bible is the inspired word of God...If somthing is inspired by the perfect God, I think he would have the humans write it down correctly. God also said he created Adam and Eve on the 6th day and then rested on the 7th...does that mean that Adam and Eve lived for the millions of years between the 6th and 7th day.God also said the 7th day was to be made holy. So are we supposed to work the 1st 6 days and then take the rest of our life off?

We have to find out what "inspired" means. If you think that "inspiredness" ensures that humans get told stories by God, and write them down correctly, you can be shown to be wrong with the Bible itself. It contains to many errors, contradictions or things of clearly human origin to be "God talking".

It was written by humans, all of it - and all that we can debate about it where these humans got the ideas for their texts from.

And here the different positions come from: Evolution looks like it is correct. You may think it is not true, ridiculous and obviously crazy - but as yet there has been no way to show that Evolution is incorrect. Every time this was tried the try has failed.

So we (well, Christians) are in a kind of dilemma. Either everything that they are able to find out about the world is incorrect - and they cannot find out why it might be!, or a certain interpretation of a certain text might be incorrect.
Many people rather would think "Perhaps I did understand Genisis incorrectly" than "I cannot trust my senses."

I may no little about the smallest details of evolution, but I believe what the Bible tells me. The bible says that God created the world and everything in it in 6 days...and rested on the 7th. Evolution contradicts the bible....therfore contradicts Gods word.

The Bible tells you also rains comes through gates in the firmament and that Emperor Augustus made a survey of the whole world. It also tells some people that the earth is flat and is circled by the sun.

All this is incorrect, and yet it is in the Bible, or is interpreted by some people to be in the Bible.

Can you give me an explanation of why they are wrong where you are correct?

 

[kingreaper]

{snip irrelevant biblical BS}

Why wait millions of years when the whole deal was less than a week's work for Omnipotent Almighty power?

Whay wait a week when he could do it in a millisecond

answer that and you've got your answer

If Dumbo Darwin Drivel were right, the whole evolutionary chain would STILL "Shake, Rattle & Roll!"

If you mean things would still be evolving, they are, its just not a very fast process from a human PoV (to a "God" it would take almost no time at all)

The differences between so-called adjacent links/steps of DDD's chain/ ladder would be as minute as those between adjoining frames of a movie!!

And your evidence that they aren't is?

The fact we can not only tell dog from fox from wolf, but even clearly distinguish King Charles Spaniel from either Joe Cocker or Prince Harry's left jab, shows that all species of life were Designer-Made by the Most Brilliant Brain in the universe!

Was that a list of domestic dog breeds?

If so you should now, all domestic doggs are considered the same species, as they can be bred with artificial insemination, and there is evidence they were all bred from the same ancestral population

Also, does the fact I can tell one chimp from another prove they were all supernaturally created?

There are millions of missing links - at every so-called stage - that evo-fans shut their eyes to, dudes!

Oh yes, the old "we'ce got A and Z where are the intermediates?"

"heres S"

"wher are the intermediates between A and S and S and Z

"well theres M and U"

"where are the intermediatres between..."

No 2 snowflakes..no 2 grains of sand..no 2 irises..no 2 sets of fingerprints, etc, etc, are identical!!

Whats this got to do with anything? (even assuming it were true)

Look at the lush pallette of autumnal colours in the leaves of the trees & see the extravagantly exuberant handiwork of the Great Artist!!

So God completey coontrols everything in the workd?

There goes that free will, and of course the PoE gets much worse as he must cause every hurricane personally

{snip links for now}

 

[kingreaper]

Nonew of the AiG links work, your removing the middle is probably what did it (I doubt thet'd have had anything worthwile anyway)

http://www.creationism.org/symposium/symp2no7.htm

THE SUN

Firsst thing first, Mars isn't desolate because its too far away, but rather because it is too small, and thus lost its atmosphere to space witht hte loss of its magnetic field

Secondly, there statements imply that only one solar system exists, giving lifew only one chance, when there are many mor esolar systems, and galaxies

The existence of the sun is hardly miraculous, nor the fact that there is a planet in the universe with the right distance from its star to produce life

THE MOON


This section appears based on the assumption that the moon is the perfect distance away, when it is not proved except by talking about the extremes

It also assumes that we haven't afdapted to the moon the way it is, and wouldn't be just as succeassful at adapting with a different moon


THE EARTH

Lifew would still exist without land, and in fact coral reefs of some sort would probably crewate a type of land

As for the increase in temperature thing SO WHAT?

We'd just have built our cities on the different coastline


Instincts

This appears to be a section on IC


[font=Arial,Helvetica]Expertness of Instinct[/font]

It is to be expected that more advanced intellect would require that instinct be lesssened, as it is less useful, and could in fact be deletrious


The Rigidity of Pure Instinct

It is expected that all members of a species would share the same instincts, as instincts are genetic

The higher the intellect the more likely deviation from the norm due to smaller factor becomes

[font=Arial,Helvetica]Instinct and Feeling[/font]

So emotions aren't purely instinctual?

This has no relevance


Part III - Examples

The Butterfly

Co-evolution

As the butterflies tongure got longer, the flowers got deeper, drivintg each to evolve further


Fishes that Fish

I've never heard of angler fish having hooks, but even if they do it is still easily evolvable, a light to see is useful, or as a bait, and it is also advantageous to have it further from teh fish


[font=Arial,Helvetica]The Moth and the Yucca Plant[/font]

once again I don't can see no reason for co-evolution to not allow this

 

[gluadys]

So if I (who understands nothing about evolution) is getting the jist of it...isn't evolution...natural selection, the strongest survive...

No, the fittest survive. Strength may or may not be a component of fitness depending on the situation.

Isn't that what Hitler was doing? Purifying the race?

No, evolution is not about purifying a race and it does not require that any one part of a species actively exterminate the other. All it requires is that one part of a species have more grandchildren than the other through the normal processes of reproduction and survival to adulthood. When two groups in a species differ in some characteristics, and this leads to one group's children having a better chance to survive and produce more children, it doesn't take long for the group with this characteristic to become the majority in the species, even to become the only surviving group.

You can work this out with fairly simple math.

How can you say that Genesis (a book which Jesus himself quoted a number of times himself) may be wrong...then how does anyone believe anything in the bible...including all of the promises Jesus made. He was the very som of God...if Genesis was wrong, I doubt he would have quoted it much.

No one is saying Genesis is wrong. All we are saying is that an interpretation of Genesis which requires it to be literal history is probably incorrect.

Also...if you believe we all came from a rock...

Where did that silly idea come from?

then how does that tie into the creation of Adam and Eve?

Theistic evolutionists have developed several different options on this score. Some consider Adam and Eve to be figurative archetypes; some believe they were literal historical individuals--the first to be blessed with the consciousness of God through receiving the Breath of Life and the image of God.

They are the 1st humans...or did God just make up a story about the 1st 2 people to come down from the trees.

Evolution does not say that humans, as such, came down from trees. Rather a creature that was an arboreal ancestor of humans adapted to a terrestrial life on the African savannahs.

As for God "making up" a story, do you think all stories are lies? Does a story have to be factual to be true? Does not the bible itself give us many instances of true stories being conveyed in symbolic language? Would it really bother you if the fruit on the tree of knowledge was not the sort of fruit you can physically hold in your hand, but rather a symbol for something dangerous and forbidden? In fact, do we not often described all sorts of things today as "forbidden fruit" even when we are not speaking of an edible snack. Why can the bible not do likewise?

Evolution is unscriptural. So if we evolved, then we are still evolving...into what? Gods? So then aren't the apes left in the word (our apparent relatives) just un evolved humans?

Yes, we are still evolving, but not into Gods. We evolve to adapt to life on earth. For example, some women who live high in the Himalayas, where the air contains less oxygen, have a new type of haemoglobin which uses the oxygen more efficiently and allows them to give birth to healthier children. This new characteristic is spreading through the population as those children pass it on to their children.

Non-human apes are not unevolved humans. They are cousins who evolved from the same ancestor we did. Are the grandchildren of your grandmother's sister unevolved versions of you and your siblings? Or just people on a different branch of the family tree? On a wider scale, chimps, gorillas and orangutans are just as evolved as humans, but on different branches of the ape family tree (which includes us as well).

The bible is the inspired word of God...

Agreed.

If somthing is inspired by the perfect God, I think he would have the humans write it down correctly.

Certainly, if it was really important. But there are many places in the bible where less important details are written differently by different writers. It seems God was not too concerned about some sorts of contradictions creeping into scripture. So why should we be?

God also said he created Adam and Eve on the 6th day and then rested on the 7th...does that mean that Adam and Eve lived for the millions of years between the 6th and 7th day.God also said the 7th day was to be made holy. So are we supposed to work the 1st 6 days and then take the rest of our life off?

Well, you cannot apply a question based on a literal interpretation to a non-literal interpretation.

I may no little about the smallest details of evolution, but I believe what the Bible tells me. The bible says that God created the world and everything in it in 6 days...and rested on the 7th. Evolution contradicts the bible....therfore contradicts Gods word.

Evolution contradicts the way you choose to read the bible. That is not at all the same thing as contradicting God's word. After all, God's word made creation. So, if creation gives us a different word than the bible, which is God's word? Can creation lie about how God created it?