Evolution vs God

[Cheeky Monkey]

Will it change the Finch into not a Finch?

Nope. Nor will it change a tetrapod into not a tetrapod but there's a whole lot of diversity that evolution can produce.

 

[dlamberth]

If all truth is god's truth then how can the facts of nature be against god?

That's what I want to know too!!

.

 

[Svt4Him]

The title of this puff piece should be "Bananaman vs. the Intelligence of those who view this film".

Well thought out argument. Since we're discussing fallacies, do you know what an ad hominem is?

 

[Svt4Him]

Oh, I found other problems in the video too. I pulled up UCLA's class listing and they have A LOT of Christian based classes, some that do teach intelligent design. I just meant what he appears to do is catch people off gaurd and I am sure they left out anyone that answered him intelligently. Editting is a wonderfull thing.

Oh sorry, are you talking about a private university, or a government school? Or are you saying the lawsuits won aren't real? Having a hard time understanding which part of it is a lie. Or is your point that Christian schools still teach intelligent design, or that there are in fact private universities that teach it?

 

[GenetoJean]

Oh sorry, are you talking about a private university, or a government school? Or are you saying the lawsuits won aren't real? Having a hard time understanding which part of it is a lie. Or is your point that Christian schools still teach intelligent design, or that there are in fact private universities that teach it?

I was pointing out that in the clip it said UCLA, a public university, didnt have those classes and the actual corriculum shows they do.

 

[EternalDragon]

They believe the Finch came from another ecosystem. Perhaps there was a storm or whatever. The Finch were able to adapt to the new ecosystem that they were now a part of. Often this is a disaster. One example is the Carp we find here in American. They brought them over from Asia but there is nothing to keep them in balance so they multiply out of control. No one wants to eat them here. In Asia people eat them so that helps to keep their population under control.

I guess my question would be how is beak sizes, density, etc. and birds multiplying like crazy because of no predators, equal evolution?

If the Finches could not eat food in their new environment with their current beak sizes, there had to be some that had a somewhat different beak and could eat o.k. The others died off or were too sick to mate properly and the better beak was selected for. Nothing new happened nor did the Finch evolve.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I guess my question would be how is beak sizes, density, etc. and birds multiplying like crazy because of no predators, equal evolution?

If the Finches could not eat food in their new environment with their current beak sizes, there had to be some that had a somewhat different beak and could eat o.k. The others died off or were too sick to mate properly and the better beak was selected for. Nothing new happened nor did the Finch evolve.

You state exactly how the finches evolved and then try to claim that they did not evolve.

That period at ten minutes in when Ray Comfort tries to claim that the evolution of Darwin's Finches is not Darwinian evolution is one of the funniest parts of that worthless video. Really Darwin's Finches??? You have to be kidding me.

 

[EternalDragon]

You state exactly how the finches evolved and then try to claim that they did not evolve.

That period at ten minutes in when Ray Comfort tries to claim that the evolution of Darwin's Finches is not Darwinian evolution is one of the funniest parts of that worthless video. Really Darwin's Finches??? You have to be kidding me.

You do know that Darwinian Evolution, as a term used today, is considered to mean the entire range of evolutionary philosophies?

So saying a changing beak size or eye color or length of hair(dog) is not Darwinian Evolution, coming from a creationist, is a completely true statement.

A dinosaur becoming a bird, now that is Darwinian Evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You do know that Darwinian Evolution, as a term used today, is considered to mean the entire range of evolutionary philosophies?

So saying a changing beak size or eye color or length of hair(dog) is not Darwinian Evolution, coming from a creationist, is a completely true statement.

A dinosaur becoming a bird, now that is Darwinian Evolution.

No, Darwinian evolution means evolution. It is the creationists who try to make artificial differences that they cannot defend.

Whether it is the Peppered Moth of England evolving to change its color or the descent of man from other apes, it is all evolution.


When I try to ask questions about similar artificial divisions creationists can never answer them.

And no denying that the evolution of Darwin's finches is not evolution is a lie. At least if you have the least little bit of education about evolution. Ray has been exposed to the arguments often enough so that there are only two choices. No, make that three. Either he is a total idiot, or he is apathological liar, or both.

Now if you don't want to be misled by Comforts almost uncountable lies will be more than happy to help you out.

Ignorance is a disease that can be cured.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the way, dinosaurs don't "become birds" a species of dinosaur evolves and eventually that dinosaur is called a bird. It is still a dinosaur.

I have dinosaur almost every week. So do you.

 

[EternalDragon]

By the way, dinosaurs don't "become birds" a species of dinosaur evolves and eventually that dinosaur is called a bird. It is still a dinosaur.

I have dinosaur almost every week. So do you.

Yeah, I get it. We are eating ourselves. That's pretty gross by the way.

 

[USincognito]

Of course, but still a beak. Not an example of Darwinian evolution. Just variation in the bird kind.

Again, where did you get the impression that it was supposed to turn into anything other than a beak - especially within a few dozen generations?

And really? "Bird kind"? Are you seriously suggesting that eagles, cassowarys, penguins, chickadees, parrots, terns, ducks, bluejays, ospreys, cormorants, etc. etc. etc. all evolved from a mated pair 4000 (or 6,000) years ago?

Why, natural selection and mutations. They have been observed and repeated you know.....

Indeed I do. I suspected you were referring to genetic frontloading for which there is no evidence what so ever. Glad to see that I was mistaken.

From an evolution chart that shows a drawing of a large dinosaur evolving into a modern day crow. Others show alligators in the chart.

I don't know which drawing you're referring to, but the likely ancestor for birds was a medium to small sized theropod and not all birds are the same size and morphology as a crow nor do they all have the same characteristics. Rheas, Cassowarys, Ostriches, Moas, etc. more closely resemble feathered theropods than they do crows in terms of size and locomotion. The crow is just a representative examples of birds so I don't know why you're getting hung up of that choice. The artist could have used an albatross or a penguin and it would have been just as accurate.

Alligators do belong on cladograms with birds, non-avian dinosaurs and other reptiles. The Crocodilomorpha (sic?) line split from the dinosaur/bird line after that larger line split from Testudines (turtles). A cladogram will have the Crocodilomorpha line if it extends from a basal reptile node that includes alligators and dinosaurs/birds.

Again, I don't see what the problem is.

 

[USincognito]

Well thought out argument.

I call a steaming pile of rotting garbage a steaming pile of rotting garbage when I see it.

Since we're discussing fallacies, do you know what an ad hominem is?

Do you know the difference between a derisive - and earned - knickname and an ad hominem? I didn't say, "Bananaman insults the intelligence of his audience because he's a stupid dummyhead".

 

[USincognito]

I guess my question would be how is beak sizes, density, etc. and birds multiplying like crazy because of no predators, equal evolution?

It must be the natural part of natural selection with which you're having the most trouble. Evolutionary arms races with predators are not the only changes that can occur in an environment. Changes in climate and environment tend to be even more important as a filter for evolution.

If the Finches could not eat food in their new environment with their current beak sizes, there had to be some that had a somewhat different beak and could eat o.k. The others died off or were too sick to mate properly and the better beak was selected for. Nothing new happened nor did the Finch evolve.

Mutations occured that allowed some finches to survive and thrive in a new environment. How is that not random mutation plus natural selection or a change in allele frequencies over time - the most basic definitions of evolution there are?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, I get it. We are eating ourselves. That's pretty gross by the way.

No, we are not descendants of dinosaurs and you did not get it.

 

[USincognito]

You do know that Darwinian Evolution, as a term used today, is considered to mean the entire range of evolutionary philosophies?

We do not. Primarily because it's a phantasm that exists only in the minds of Creationists. Darwinian Evolution refers to the theory of evolution only.

So saying a changing beak size or eye color or length of hair(dog) is not Darwinian Evolution, coming from a creationist, is a completely true statement.

So's Law.

Mutations that result in different phenotypical expressions and are selected by nature are Darwinian Evolution in action. If those changes are selected for by humans, that's called "animal husbandry" or, for plants, "agriculture".

A dinosaur becoming a bird, now that is Darwinian Evolution.

Now this is a true statement... sort of (birds never stopped being dinosaurs, they are just theropod dinosaurs with feathers and different characteristics).

 

[USincognito]

Yeah, I get it. We are eating ourselves. That's pretty gross by the way.

How did you possibly get that out of what SZ wrote?

 

[EternalDragon]

And really? "Bird kind"? Are you seriously suggesting that eagles, cassowarys, penguins, chickadees, parrots, terns, ducks, bluejays, ospreys, cormorants, etc. etc. etc. all evolved from a mated pair 4000 (or 6,000) years ago?

I'm not suggesting anything because the answers to those questions can't be observed, tested nor repeated.

What I believe is that there were several or more bird kinds created by God who were on the Ark and that some of them adapted to give birth to differing bird types as a result of environmental changes and through natural selection of already imbedded genetic information for those changes. (In other words, nothing new and still birds.)

Is your question any more crazy than what evolution says? That all living things originated from a common ancestor?

 

[EternalDragon]

How did you possibly get that out of what SZ wrote?

In evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share common descent if they have a common ancestor. There is strong evidence that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor, called the last universal ancestor or LUA (or last universal common ancestor, LUCA).

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not suggesting anything because the answers to those questions can't be observed, tested nor repeated.

What I believe is that there were several or more bird kinds created by God who were on the Ark and that some of them adapted to give birth to differing bird types as a result of environmental changes and through natural selection of already imbedded genetic information for those changes. (In other words, nothing new and still birds.)

Is your question any more crazy than what evolution says? That all living things originated from a common ancestor?

ED, we know there was no flood.

All of geology says there was no flood.

All of biology says there was no flood.

All of physics says there was no flood.

I am sure that if I knew enough chemistry I would say the same for it.

So why do you reject all of science. And since you are rejecting all of science why are you using science every day? Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical to you?