God used Evolution to create man

[EternalDragon]

I am sorry, but so much was incorrect in that statement that I didn't view correcting monkeys to apes as important enough to delay the post.

Speciation is explained within the theory of evolution. However, to be clear, the origin of life itself is not, and I despise ever so much that I have to state that so often.

Fair enough. I'm sure there will always be new members here posting things along those lines.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Obviously, the monkeys coming from birds is a joke to show how ridiculous it is that another animal is turning into a different animal....given millions of years.

It is also intended to show that eventually...the evolutionist is stuck with saying organic matter came from inorganic matter and eventually everything came from nothing.

No, abiogenesis can be disproven and evolution wouldn't be. How hard is it to understand that evolution is a secular theory, like all theories in science, not an atheistic one? Only an absolutely literal interpretation of the bible clashes with evolutionary theory (and barely at that). However, you believe that a deity breathed life into dirt, talked through burning bushes, and flooded the world in a rage quit. In my perspective, that would be considered ridiculous. However, neither of our subjective opinions on such matters is relevant; how ridiculous we think one another's positions are has nothing to do with who is more likely to be correct. Obviously, if you thought evolution seemed reasonable you wouldn't be so staunchly against it, and likewise if I found a literal interpretation of the bible to be plausible I probably wouldn't be an atheist, and potentially wouldn't support evolution.

Technically, in the case of theistic evolutionists, you don't have to support abiogenesis at all to support evolution. And many people on here have that position, not me mind you, but quite a few people. Evolution is not tied so strongly to abiogenesis that you have to accept both or reject both.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Fair enough. I'm sure there will always be new members here posting things along those lines.

Nothing hurts me more than people disagreeing with a theory they clearly do not understand the basics of. People should not learn evolution solely from apologist sites and hearsay. I try to avoid debating topics I have little to no understanding of because I know that any position I could possibly have would be based in ignorance and bias.

You are probably right about that though.

 

[morse86]

Looks like the evolution definition is a soup du jour term. It's changing on a weekly basis. See one of Kent Hovind's debates where he does a thorough job exposing it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Looks like the evolution definition is a soup du jour term. It's changing on a weekly basis. See one of Kent Hovind's debates where he does a thorough job exposing it.

I wouldn't trust the guy in jail for tax fraud who was shown to have a fake degree, and neither should you.

 

[lasthero]

Looks like the evolution definition is a soup du jour term. It's changing on a weekly basis. See one of Kent Hovind's debates where he does a thorough job exposing it.

You're not even gonna tell us which one?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Oh, but it is a whole lot more and you know it. Species changing characteristics and adapting to environment changes isn't really evolution.

Except that that is exactly what evolution is. Changing characteristics and adapting to environments and become a "better fit" for that niche in the process. Another point that is frequently forgotton is that these changes are cumulative. Which is exactly why the amount of change typically grows a lot bigger as more generations pass, compared to the hypothetical "generation 0" (the generation where the observation starts if you wish).

It's speciation within species populations.

Speciation means that a species becomes a sub-species. Meaning that the new species is no longer to be viewed as the same species as the one it previously was.

So "speciation within a species" is quite an absurd thing to say.
In some way, it would be the same as saying that a wooden chair is still a tree.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Obviously, the monkeys coming from birds is a joke to show how ridiculous it is that another animal is turning into a different animal....given millions of years.

The problem is that your "joke" made you lose all your credibility. You're flat out admitting now that your "argument" against evolution was no less then a strawman.

If evolution is indeed as absurd as you claim it is, why then do you need to put up strawman in order to argue against it?

It looks like arguing strawman is the only ammo you have against the theory. If you had actual real data to provide, you would do that instead of constructing a strawman.

It is also intended to show that eventually...the evolutionist is stuck with saying organic matter came from inorganic matter and eventually everything came from nothing.

False. Evolution theory doesn't speak on the origins of life. And certainly not on the origin of matter itself.

Scope. It matters.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Looks like the evolution definition is a soup du jour term. It's changing on a weekly basis. See one of Kent Hovind's debates where he does a thorough job exposing it.

I officially name this thread suspect of Poe.

 

[RichardParker]

Looks like the evolution definition is a soup du jour term. It's changing on a weekly basis. See one of Kent Hovind's debates where he does a thorough job exposing it.

Kent Hovind?
Dr. Dino?
The moron, who thinks that clouds can stop x-rays, who doesn't know the difference between a gene, a genome, chromosomes and base-pairs?
The moron who believes that there used to be a water-dome over the entire earth?
And who can't tell the difference between a rotting basking-shark corps and a dinosaur corps?
That scientificly illiterate moron?
Please don't tell me that this guy isn't still used as a reference by people

 

[RichardParker]

Where? Name that species.

Ensatina salamander, for example.
Or Larus gulls.
These are examples of so called ring-species, very interessting phenomenon which shows speciation better than any other example.

But especially in plants it's a fairly common occurence.

Here you can find a list:

Observed Instances of Speciation

Have fun.

 

[bhsmte]

Looks like the evolution definition is a soup du jour term. It's changing on a weekly basis. See one of Kent Hovind's debates where he does a thorough job exposing it.

Kenny is a funny guy.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Kent Hovind?
Dr. Dino?
The moron, who thinks that clouds can stop x-rays, who doesn't know the difference between a gene, a genome, chromosomes and base-pairs?
The moron who believes that there used to be a water-dome over the entire earth?
And who can't tell the difference between a rotting basking-shark corps and a dinosaur corps?
That scientificly illiterate moron?
Please don't tell me that this guy isn't still used as a reference by people

You would have a stroke if you knew just how often he is used as a reference. From the stress

 

[RichardParker]

You would have a stroke if you knew just how often he is used as a reference. From the stress

Yeah, but...
Even other big-name creationists distance themselves from him and his bat-[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] ideas!
...
*sigh*
This is the kind of things that sometimes makes me really, really sad

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yeah, but...
Even other big-name creationists distance themselves from him and his bat-[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] ideas!
...
*sigh*
This is the kind of things that sometimes makes me really, really sad

Gotta love the censor on this site

 

[RichardParker]

Gotta love the censor on this site

Ohhhh, come on!!!
Bat-poop? Is bat-poop allowed?

Looks like it!
So, his bat-poop ideas!

 

[EternalDragon]

Ensatina salamander, for example.
Or Larus gulls.
These are examples of so called ring-species, very interessting phenomenon which shows speciation better than any other example.

But especially in plants it's a fairly common occurence.

Here you can find a list:

Observed Instances of Speciation

Have fun.

I think you misunderstood me. All you gave are examples of characteristic variation within a species and then people giving them names to differentiate them. Like variation in finches.

The Wiki, on evolution, states that species just appeared suddenly in the Cambrian explosion. It states that plants and fungi first appeared, then insects, then amphibians, then amniotes and birds, then mammals and then humans. Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please give an observed instance of this kind of described evolution. Like a reptile turning into a bird and the steps that requires. And if the changes are too slight to observe then please state that we can't observe it and stop saying we have.

 

[selfinflikted]

The Wiki, on evolution, states that species just appeared suddenly in the Cambrian explosion.

What kind of time-span do you think is meant by "suddenly" here?

 

[EternalDragon]

What kind of time-span do you think is meant by "suddenly" here?

They just showed up as complex and fully functioning.

The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere, centers on three key points: whether there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid change; and what it would imply about the origin of animal life. Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures remaining in Cambrian rocks.

Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[HitchSlap]

They just showed up as complex and fully functioning.

Not even close, Skippy.