GAP Creationism VS YEC & OEC Creationism

[createdtoworship]

No I just didn't want to get off topic burning up all your other strawmen.

This statement does not make sense.

like I said, no arguments. Thats okay.

But evolution does not exist on a macro level, only micro evolution exists.

 

[Split Rock]

go ahead and do it but do it with ID not creationism.

thats a little harder.

The whole point of ID is to make your religious dogma sound less silly. Nevertheless, it isn't much different. "owwww.... that looks complex, therefore my god, *opps* the unknown intelligent designer must have done it." It doesn't change how silly your creationism is, and you have the gall to come here and try to make the theory of evolution look silly. Look in the mirror first, creationist.

like I said, no arguments. Thats okay.

But evolution does not exist on a macro level, only micro evolution exists.

Define "macro evolution" for us.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

like I said, no arguments. Thats okay.

You wrote
and
attacking evolution attacks OEC though, else there is no mechanism to grow.

I said this statement does not make sense. What more argument is needed? There is no point to trearing down your other strawmen. Do you know what the logical fallacy of the false dilema or false dichotomy is? It is one of creationism favorite logical fallacies. I suggest you look it up if you don't know.

But evolution does not exist on a macro level, only micro evolution exists.

Again irrelevant to this thread. See above.

 

[createdtoworship]

You wrote
and
attacking evolution attacks OEC though, else there is no mechanism to grow.

I said this statement does not make sense. What more argument is needed? There is no point to trearing down your other strawmen. Do you know what the logical fallacy of the false dilema or false dichotomy is? It is one of creationism favorite logical fallacies. I suggest you look it up if you don't know.

Again irrelevant to this thread. See above.

OEC goes hand in hand with TE (theistic evolution), correct? I mean if we accepted the millions of years dating for the fossil record how does evolution not play a part?

 

[createdtoworship]

The whole point of ID is to make your religious dogma sound less silly. Nevertheless, it isn't much different. "owwww.... that looks complex, therefore my god, *opps* the unknown intelligent designer must have done it." It doesn't change how silly your creationism is, and you have the gall to come here and try to make the theory of evolution look silly. Look in the mirror first, creationist.



Define "macro evolution" for us.

macro evolution is a text book term, it's not a creationist term. so youll have to look it up to get all the info you want on it. I was just giving an example of macro evolution.

Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

as wikipedia suggests macro evolution would be a transition between a bird and a dinasaur, and while there much talk about feathered dinasaurs they are still cold blooded while birds are warm blooded.

the difference between reptilian and feathers

also some dinasaurs have fuzz that resembles feathers but is not actually feathers under a microscope....

scales are a continuos sheet while feathers are a tube follicle so there are no compatibilities...Thus, while feathers grow and are shed individually (actually in symmetrically matched pairs!), scales grow and are shed as an entire sheet of skin.

also birds have a different style of lungs for aviation and this in not the same in dinasaurs....
BIRD LUNG

dinasaur lung

 

[Jazer]

Oh, I'm a Christian. I'm just not one who dances to your tune.

Ok, let me try to explain it to you this way. Romans 11:28 says: "for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." Lets take Lady Gaga for an example. No one would question that she has talent or what we could call a gift from God. She has a choice, she could use that gift to honor God, but she does not have to honor God. She is free to dishonor God if she wants. He will not take away her gift.

Evolution is the same. No one denys that it contains truth. No one denys that Lady Gaga has talent. Do people use evolution to honor God? I do not think so. Those very same people would deny that Lady Gaga got her talent from God. They would say her talent is random chance or a mutation. They would even point to a gene and say look there is the dance gene. It mutated and that is why they can dance. Does this honor God? Does this glorify God? That is the choice we have. Do we use our gifts and talents in a way that brings God honor or glory?

Of course there is holy sanctified living also, but that maybe another topic.

 

[Greg1234]

Show us evidence that sickness and disease all come out of mutations and errors.

DNA damage is normally repaired and a mutation is the result of the inability of the repair system to repair or suppress that damage. DNA repair systems are as susceptible to damage as any other part of the genome.

In the soma, even after millions upon millions of generations via mitosis, you get known genetic diseases and others discovered.

Also in the soma, you also have programmed mutations and the germline is also equipped with a similar mechanism.

Adaptation does not take a millions of years but happens in a very short time if the need arises. Even beneficial mutations break down function as long term experiments confirm, the capabilities of the repair system would be breached in Darwinian evolution, and a continuous degradation of DNA repair systems would result in the incompetence of same over long periods of time.

 

[Jazer]

Sorry Jazer, but you are wrong. I did a Google Scholar search for "hamster hair color mutation," and look what I found

I am not wrong because there was NO mutation. You have a recessive gene and you have a bottleneck so that recessive gene was not being expressed. It was there all along. With some selective breeding that recessive gene could turn into a dominate gene and you would call that evolution. Call it whatever you want, no mutation took place in the hamster. Scientiests are just throwing the word around and they are wrong, they are in error. Was it that difficult for you to look at the artical so you knew what we were talking about? Believe what you want, you just have no evidence to show a mutation because the difference in color comes from a recessive gene. We are talking about 5 th grade science and a clear example of where Phd's can not be trusted.

 

[Split Rock]

I am not wrong because there was NO mutation. You have a recessive gene and you have a bottleneck so that recessive gene was not being expressed. It was there all along. With some selective breeding that recessive gene could turn into a dominate gene and you would call that evolution. Call it whatever you want, no mutation took place in the hamster. Scientiests are just throwing the word around and they are wrong, they are in error. Was it that difficult for you to look at the artical so you knew what we were talking about? Believe what you want, you just have no evidence to show a mutation because the difference in color comes from a recessive gene. We are talking about 5 th grade science and a clear example of where Phd's can not be trusted.

Read them again. These are new mutations (read paragraph 3 in Rex coat: A new mutation in the Syrian hamster, for example). Closing your eyes and then comparing scientists to 5th graders who cannot be trusted is really pathetic. You seemed more reasonable than most creationists here... I see I was indeed wrong.. but I was wrong about you. We're done here.

 

[Split Rock]

macro evolution is a text book term, it's not a creationist term. so youll have to look it up to get all the info you want on it. I was just giving an example of macro evolution.

Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

as wikipedia suggests macro evolution would be a transition between a bird and a dinasaur, and while there much talk about feathered dinasaurs they are still cold blooded while birds are warm blooded.

The text book also says that speciation represents macroevolution. Do you agree?

the difference between reptilian and feathers

also some dinasaurs have fuzz that resembles feathers but is not actually feathers under a microscope....

scales are a continuos sheet while feathers are a tube follicle so there are no compatibilities...Thus, while feathers grow and are shed individually (actually in symmetrically matched pairs!), scales grow and are shed as an entire sheet of skin.

also birds have a different style of lungs for aviation and this in not the same in dinasaurs....
BIRD LUNG

dinasaur lung

There are dinosaur feathers much better developed than the fuss ones. Here are some examples:

http://amog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/fossil-feather1.jpg
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks//fossilized feather.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_RndMjaetB8Q/THacBnhKGUI/AAAAAAAAAv0/PFpIZ3RkWXs/s1600/1000000200.JPG

The fact that we have different stages in the development of feathers among different dinosaur species lends further credence to the theory.

 

[Jazer]

dirt-man, a rib-woman

Those have both been verified by Science. dust6083 of 4480 the ground 127. Notice all three of these word have a word in the origional Hebrew. We know today that Moses is talking about the Elements. Science 3500 years ago was not as advanced as Science today. Even though Moses was a very well educated. He got the best Education Egypt had to offer. In fact his brother was the Pharaoh. or King of Egypt. (Moses was adopted) They both got the same rich boy upper class education. "99% of the mass of the human body is made up of only six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. Every organic molecule contains carbon. Since 65-90% of each body cell consists of water (by weight), it isn't surprising that oxygen and hydrogen are major components of the body." Elements in the Human Body So What is the going rate for a body's worth of these elements? One US dollar! If you are only worth a dollar then dust maybe a good word to use. How Much Are the Elements in Your Body Worth?

Same story for the rib of the women. IF you follow the research on Stem Cells then you know that the Bone Marrow contains these stem cells. Very recent Science in the last 10 years shows us that is exactly where you would go in a man if you wanted DNA to create a women.

Adam gets his MtDNA from his mother. The mitochondrial is passed from mother to daughter. Science does tell us that the Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden 6,000 years ago decended from the Out of Africa Adam and Eve that science tell us about. Some is going to remind me they lived 60,000 years and 160,000 years or whatever science says they lived.

Again Science tells us that the haplogroup j1 j2 y-dna Hebrew Adam and Eve that lived in the Garden of Eden 6,000 years ago decended from the Scientific Adam and Eve that according to theory came out of Africa. It is actually Hebrew (Jewish) people at the University of Jerusalam. And Jerusalam University Hosptial that is doing the DNA research on the population genetics of the Hebrew people then and now.

So the Science research that has not even found it's way into the text books shows that the Science of Moses 3500 years ago is true and accurate.

 

[Jazer]

Read again These are new mutations

Don't BS me, show me your evidence. Talk is cheap and to say: "new mutation" does not mean nothing. If that is your theory, then prove your theory. I am not going to accept it without evidence.

You do not accept anything from me without evidence and so I produce scientific evidence to back up what I say. Now it's your turn to produce your evidence.

 

[Jazer]

Then, after peace was restored, Genesis 1 resumes at 1:26 -- 6000 years ago.

Is this correct?

I am GAP a day is 1000 years. Adam and Eve were in the Garden on the Eighth Day that was 6,000 years ago. The man in 1:26 was created on the 6th day and that would have been 8,000 years ago. He was told to populate the whole earth. Actually the word was replenish: "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it"

Notice: "Gen 2:4 These are the generations" Adam was the First Hebrew. Well maybe Abraham was the first Hebrew. I do not like to use the word Jewish.

Adam was in the Garden of Eden in the Euphrates River Valley in the Northern Part of the Furtile Cresent where farming and even civiliation began. He was a part of what Science calls the Neolithic Revoltion.

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed ) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.[/FONT]

 

[AV1611VET]

I am GAP a day is 1000 years. Adam and Eve were in the Garden on the Eighth Day that was 6,000 years ago. The man in 1:26 was created on the 6th day and that would have been 8,000 years ago. He was told to populate the whole earth. Actually the word was replenish: "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it"

Notice: "Gen 2:4 These are the generations" Adam was the First Hebrew. [FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bible/strongs/ref/?stgh=greek&stnm=2316[/FONT]

Thanks for the correction.

Just out of curiosity though, I was under the impression that Abraham was the first Hebrew.

 

[Jazer]

Just out of curiosity though, I was under the impression that Abraham was the first Hebrew.

Yes, I corrected that. I do not like to use the word Jewish. So I do not know what word to use for Adam.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, I corrected that. I do not like to use the word Jewish. So I do not know what word to use for Adam.

I like "Adamite".

We're not Homo sapiens -- we're Adamites.

 

[Jazer]

I like "Adamite".

We're not Homo sapiens -- we're Adamites.

We are adopted into the family of God. The Hebrews call them Gentiles, Jesus called them dogs. This is a very strong theme with Abraham: the children of freedom and the children of bondage.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mar&c=7&t=KJV#27But 1161 Jesus 2424 said 2036 unto her 846, Let 863 the children 5043 first 4412 be filled 5526: for 1063 it is 2076 not 3756 meet 2570 to take 2983 the children's 5043 bread 740, and 2532 to cast 906 [it] unto the dogs 2952.Mar 7:27

But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; 2 pet 2 12

For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?Rom 11 24

 

[Split Rock]

Don't BS me, show me your evidence. Talk is cheap and to say: "new mutation" does not mean nothing. If that is your theory, then prove your theory. I am not going to accept it without evidence.

You do not accept anything from me without evidence and so I produce scientific evidence to back up what I say. Now it's your turn to produce your evidence.

I gave you an entire list of references, with all the data you could want. I gave you papers specifically on what you asked for: Hair color changes brought on by mutations in hamsters! If that isn't "evidence" then tell me what is. You responded with: "Every research geneticist on the planet is operating at less than a 5th grade level and is full of it." How many genetics experiments have you carried out? You are the one full of it. Don't ask for it if you are just going to dismiss it all out of hand.

 

[createdtoworship]

The text book also says that speciation represents macroevolution. Do you agree?

There are dinosaur feathers much better developed than the fuss ones. Here are some examples:

http://amog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/fossil-feather1.jpg
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks//fossilized feather.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_RndMjaetB8Q/THacBnhKGUI/AAAAAAAAAv0/PFpIZ3RkWXs/s1600/1000000200.JPG

The fact that we have different stages in the development of feathers among different dinosaur species lends further credence to the theory.

I agree with speciation to a point, I believe macro evolution to be at above the species level (at the genus level) however.

there are no credible sources that state dinosaurs have feathers. The two that do have feathers (Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx) have recently been named birds.


source...
A. Feduccia, T. Lingham-Soliar, and J.R. Hinchliffe, Do feathered dinosaurs exist? Testing the hypothesis on neontological and paleontological evidence, Journal of Morphology 266:125–166, 2005.

 

[Jazer]

I gave you an entire list of references.

Yep and they are all bogus because coat color has nothing to do with mutations. You have given me a fine example of the mis information you find in Evolutionary theory. What you want to do is a study on equine coat color genetics This will explain to you how it all works. You will see that it has nothing to do with mutations. All the syrian hamsters came from ONE common ancestor. There are lots of them but the reason the color was so limited was because of a bottleneck. So you may also want to do a study on population bottleneck (or genetic bottleneck).

If you want to call "equine coat color genetics" and "population bottleneck" "Evolution" then I can not stop you. At least you will be talking real Science and not some bogus mutations theory. Mutated Ninja Turtles maybe cute, but I am sorry to inform you that it is just a cartoon and they do not exist in the real world of real Science.