Genesis is a lie. Question for christians...

[Montalban]

Sure you could reclassify them, but if you included birds among the primates they'd stick out as extremely different.

That depends one what basis one uses to classify them.

 

[Keachian]

Where'd you get the idea that they don't use maths in engineering?

Where'd you get the idea that they don't use maths in science?

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Looks like we finally, sort of, agree on something. Since cars were intelligently designed, they won't fit into a phylogenetic tree like living creatures do -- the graph of car designs wouldn't look like the "tree of life".

Yet you are still missing the point: that biological life is far more complex than cars and demands an intelligent engineer for construction and not mere natural processes.

And just as important: that you have not (and cannot) find the step-by-step scenario of life in the fossil record that should be just as easily found in the earth as are cars in a local junkyard proving their succession from Model-T's to Lamborghini's.

I can't make you understand this and it is clear that you don't wish to do so.

Bye.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Unless a sudden, unexpected catastrophy comes along (an asteroid crashing into Earth for example), animals which manage to breed successfully obviously aren't on the road to extinction.

I'm not sure which DNR website you mean either. I'm guessing it's not "Do Not Resuscitate'.

Let me help you along: Dept. of Natural Resources, O pretending one.

Secondly, give evidence that any asterioid or any other global tragedy changed the DNA of existing biological life. Creationists certainly don't claim that for the Noahic deluge.

 

[Keachian]

And just as important: that you have not (and cannot) find the step-by-step scenario of life in the fossil record that should be just as easily found in the earth as are cars in a local junkyard proving their succession from Model-T's to Lamborghini's.

Wait, what?

 

[Kirkwhisper]

According to the theory of evolution/common descent, (name a creature) evolved into (name another creature) within the time frame of (amount of time). The evidence I would expect to see were this true, is (number of distinct intermediate fossils [taking into account the number of species there are, the completeness of fossils discovered, and the number of fossils discovered to date]). Alternately, I might expect to see (description of trait) evolve under laboratory conditions of (describe) with a population size of (number) over (number) generations.

You don't even see that much. You have to pretend.

(Unless that is, you consider bacteria that changes into different species of ...guess what(?) ....bacteria. Flies that transform into different types of ...guess what(?)...flies; moths changing into different types of....guess what(?)...moths; or rodents turning into different types of ....guess what(?)...need I go further?

The melangaster drosophila among flies is one famous example that was carried to over 50,000 generations in at least one well-known experiment. But .....guess what(?)...they started with flies and ended up with clearly, identifiably, classifiably flies.

What you're seeing in the above picture is pretty much the range for the wild types. And these kind of results are seen in every organism on earth. The limitations that Mendel gave us are there and those limitations are described in scripture: 'after his kind'. There really isn't anything you can do about it.

Hang it up. You've lost on every single point of this conversation.

 

[Assyrian]

That's what it means! I explained it. "Fitness" is that which survives.

Fitness = that which survives

Fitness to survive = that which survives.

That which survives survives.

Except you have already admitted fitness isn't simply that which survives it is the traits that enable it to survive.
The description Darwin used had initial conditions and a result.
You removed the initial condition and replaced them with the result so you are giving the result twice..

You changed
result of the conditions
to
the result is the result

Of course the fact you can so easily substitute them to make a tautology, the fact you can see that organisms with traits suited to their environment are better able to survive, is evidence you realise the obvious truth of Darwin's statement.

Nothing re-arranged at all.

Sure you, did you replaced fitness and the traits responsible for fitness and put the result of those traits on both sides to build a tautology.

Which means that which surives survives

What is a 'trait for fitness' is unknown. All one can know is that the animal itself was 'fit' to survive because it survived.

Sure if you stick you fingers in you ears and go 'la la la'.

Sometimes you can tell the trait because of which animal survives, often you have a pretty good idea before you see the result. You introduce cats to an island where birds, who never met a predator like a cat, nest happily on the ground. Now the environment has changed, now it has cats in it. Who will survive in this environment, bird or cats? I will let you into a clue, it has happened before, we know what happens. So what do you think would happen if you tried it again on another island with the same innocent ground nesting birds? Could you guess in advance the likely result because you know cats have the trait of being a vicious predator who like killing birds? What if there were two types of that bird, one that nested on the ground the other on cliffs? Which of those would be likely to survive when the cats were introduced?

Like Penguins?

Not many polar bears in Antarctica. Besides you are making the very basic mistake of thinking if a trait would be advantageous it has to evolve. It needs to be present in the gene pool to be selected.

Seals?

Adult seals are most exposed to predators in the water, when they are on the the ice they are usually within easy reach of water to escape from land predators.

Eskimo?

Not sure naked Inuit are often seen by predators.

Not all creatures escape leopards by out-running them. Some can fly away, others can go into burrows.

I didn't say you had to outrun the leopard, you just have to outrun your chubby friend.

 

[Assyrian]

You miss the point. Someone is arguing that what happens in nature isn't arbitrary.

It is, that's the nature of nature.

Conversely they suggested that a thought out collection of cars to show evolution is arbitrary.

It could only be if a person had some kind of random car name generator and it spewed out names randomly

Not sure anyone has a random car name generator, though it would explain some of the names. But that has nothing to do with the simple fact you cannot create a phylogenetic tree for cars. And the fact you cannot fit car into a twin nested hierarchy the way you can with living creatures shows the difference between design and evolution. You may not be able to understand it, you may think the only possible reason for it to be true would be a random car name generator. But reality is not limited by your imagination, and unfortunately life does fit a twin nested hierarchy while car design simply doesn't.

You see evolution, descent with modification will produce a twin nested hierarchy, design won't because designers can pick and choose the part most suitable to their new design, they are not limited to slight modifications the earlier version, but can shove in mp3 players, ABS brakes or a completely new diesel engine manufactured by a different company.

The fact that life on earth fits neatly in the twin nested hierarchy while car design doesn't, shows us life evolved by descent with modification, not design.

 

[Assyrian]

Having white fur made them targeted by seal fur hunters so having white fur was not an advantage.

Those wishing to save them threw green dye on the seal cubs.

I tough fur was out of fashion now, they still carry out the cull to stop the competition for fish stocks, nothing to do with the colour of their fur. Does Greenpeace still dye the seals green, or was it just in the 70s and 80s? Isn't that kind of a short time for them to evolve a completely different fur colour?

Although if you want to see rapid evolutionary response to human hunting, just look at the size of cod. Fishing regulations and net sizes mean trawlers are only allowed catch the larger cod, but the result is cod sizes are getting smaller and cod reach maturity at a smaller size.

So one should be arguing that having green fur would be an advantage!

Again all you are doing is showing a complete lack of understanding about evolution. Wouldn't they need a mutation that produces a green pigment before it could be selected? Not sure green would be a terribly good colour for a seal anyway.

And of course you example against your own argument about having white fur anyway, because this is only a temporary covering for them, so they lose that 'advantage' and still survive.

And have pups of their own who have white fur when white is an advantage.

But it's circular reasoning to suppose that whatever it is that they have is an advantage

No it is a conclusion from what we know about evolution and natural selection. Nor is it circular reasoning to realise a white seal pup is harder for a polar bear to spot than a brown one.

 

[chris4243]

According to the theory of evolution/common descent, (name a creature) evolved into (name another creature) within the time frame of (amount of time). The evidence I would expect to see were this true, is (number of distinct intermediate fossils [taking into account the number of species there are, the completeness of fossils discovered, and the number of fossils discovered to date]). Alternately, I might expect to see (description of trait) evolve under laboratory conditions of (describe) with a population size of (number) over (number) generations.
​

You don't even see that much. You have to pretend.

So you don't understand the theory of evolution, and apparently don't realize that you can even try to understand it despite not believing it? Can't even fill in the blanks, for what a prediction of the theory of evolution/common descent would look like, and what evidence there should be if it were true?

I take it that you are one of those people who can't answer "If all Bleeps were Gloops, and all Gloops were Praps, then ..." because they're all nonesense words and you don't do hypotheticals?

(Unless that is, you consider bacteria that changes into different species of ...guess what(?) ....bacteria. Flies that transform into different types of ...guess what(?)...flies; moths changing into different types of....guess what(?)...moths; or rodents turning into different types of ....guess what(?)...need I go further?

Yes, those are all correct predictions of the theory of evolution. They're also observed. I bet you didn't realize that the theory of evolution predicts all those examples you gave!

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Dear friends,

So you don't understand the theory of evolution, and apparently don't realize that you can even try to understand it despite not believing it? Can't even fill in the blanks, for what a prediction of the theory of evolution/common descent would look like, and what evidence there should be if it were true?

I take it that you are one of those people who can't answer "If all Bleeps were Gloops, and all Gloops were Praps, then ..." because they're all nonesense words and you don't do hypotheticals?

"So you don't understand the theory of evolution..."

Poor me. I am an ex-evolutionist who defended evolution vigorously. I taught biology for nearly thirty years & studied the subject 45 yrs. Yet this person says I don't understand it.

I would call it Orwellian mindwashing...but more accurately it is satanic blindness.



Bye.

 

[Papias]

Kirkwhisper, I see that you still haven't answered the question below.

Kirkwhisper wrote:

they decide to attack the quotes of what Mendel said...knowing full well he was a creationist and did not believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. How can we know that Mendel said those things and that the quotes represent his true position? Answer: by the preponderance of information available on the subject.

So Kirkwhisper - are you saying that if we surmise that a given person held a given general view, based on "the preponderance of information available on the subject" (even though Assyrian showed that the basis for thinking he held that extreme view was based on quote-mining in the first place), that we can then make up quotes that we would have liked him to say, and then claim that he said them?

I'm still trying to figure out your position on that quote, and your approach in what is allowed in quoting people, based on that example.

Papias
​

 

[chris4243]

Dear friends,



"So you don't understand the theory of evolution..."

Poor me. I am an ex-evolutionist who defended evolution vigorously.

Funny, I'm an ex-creationist debating with an ex-evolutionist.

I taught biology for nearly thirty years & studied the subject 45 yrs. Yet this person says I don't understand it.

Just because you taught some subject, doesn't mean that you understood it. Ever seen an American high school teacher? You say you studied the subject for 45 years, I say even if you did you don't know much about it. Let's test: what's the name for when one gamete kills its sibling gametes?

I would call it Orwellian mindwashing...but more accurately it is satanic blindness.



Bye.

Did you know that it is against the rules of the site to question the Christianity of a member?

 

[shernren]

Let's test: what's the name for when one gamete kills its sibling gametes?

The 2012 primaries?

 

[Assyrian]

Genesis 4?

 

[Kirkwhisper]

My answer to theistic errorists here:

Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject.

To the rest of you I will be glad to answer the questions that have been raised.

 

[chris4243]

My answer to theistic errorists here:

Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject.

To the rest of you I will be glad to answer the questions that have been raised.

Shall we agree to consider each other heretics then, and mutually ignore each other? To my eyes you're a heretic because you're calling God a liar by saying that God's Creation falsely suggests evolution, to your eyes I'm a heretic because I'm calling God a liar by saying the Creation account in Genesis isn't literally true. You disagree with the previous statement because you in fact think that Creation doesn't suggest evolution, and I disagree with the previous statement because I think Genesis was never intended to be literal.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Secondly, give evidence that any asterioid or any other global tragedy changed the DNA of existing biological life.

I didn't claim that. I claimed that if a species is thriving, the only thing which would suddenly wipe it our would be a major natural disaster. Asteroids generally don't change DNA.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

I didn't claim that. I claimed that if a species is thriving, the only thing which would suddenly wipe it our would be a major natural disaster. Asteroids generally don't change DNA.

Correct.

Now what changed the DNA in living organisms that transformed them into other classifiably different organisms a la Charles Darwin?

Name it and then demonstrate an observed change from one type into another type over any length of time. No artwork or chart work, please.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Poor me. I am an ex-evolutionist who defended evolution vigorously. I taught biology for nearly thirty years & studied the subject 45 yrs. Yet this person says I don't understand it.

It's hard to take your word for it when you write silly things like this:

The same with canines. There is quite a bit of differential expression in the genes of dogs but one will never see nature produce this:

What most Creationists fail to realise is that if a dog mated with a chimp and created some kind of pan-canis hybrid, it wouldn't prove evolution. It would completely and utterly disprove it.