Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Jig said:Verse 9 is not talking about ALL the trees of the world. It is ONLY talking about the trees in Eden. Verse 9 just adds a bit of detail to what and how God created the Garden.
Jig said:I might be taking this out of context, but it appears that your saying I'm in need of your teaching.
The evidence? You mean the evidence whose meaning could convert and change when 'new' discoveries are found. In some cases, what the majority of scientists believed prior to 'newer' evidence makes what they last claimed true to be false.
With origin science, one can expect it to continually change with the times.
Anyhow, am I hearing you right? You want me to put my Bible down and go to a lab?
How can you guarantee that what you believe now will not change with a future 'discovery'? You have to remember what you believe in is a theory, not a fact. How can you say I'm 100 percent wrong, when you can't even say your 100 percent right?
The Bible has not changed, it seems the only thing evolving is science.
The Lady Kate said:What a huge assumption.
The Lady Kate said:Would you prefer he typed it in large bolded font?
The Lady Kate said:We call that "learning." It's actually quite a useful process...
The Lady Kate said:And so it has... even Creationists have reluctantly accepted evolution... once they renamed it "micro-evolution" or "variation within a 'kind.'"
The Lady Kate said:Again, learning is a wonderful process... it leads to all sorts of discoveries, and in the process, shatters preconceived notions.
The Lady Kate said:Not at all... feel free to keep the Bible in your backpack... you'll probably need both hands free in the lab.
The Lady Kate said:Because science is a process of elimination... and YEC has already been eliminated. While we're still grasping for the correct answer, a myriad of incorrect ones have been ruled out already.
The Lady Kate said:Science... and every living thing we've ever observed.
Jig said:What a huge assumption.
Jig said:The Bible has not changed, it seems the only thing evolving is science.
Verse 9 is not talking about ALL the trees of the world. It is ONLY talking about the trees in Eden. Verse 9 just adds a bit of detail to what and how God created the Garden.
That is a fallacy. A young Earth can't be ruled out. What happens if evidence is found that carbon really doesn't have a constant rate of decay?
Science has never observed a species evolve into a new species or viewed a gain of new information in any thing. Viewing a species adapt or observing a loss of information is completely different and actaully go along with what the Bible teaches.
Jig said:So the truth is out...you guys really do think YECist are stupid.
What happens if a 'new' discovery proves a young Earth? You can not leave that out as a possiblity. True?
You do realize this applies to mostly your side of study and theory...20 years ago the guess of the Earths age was quite less then what science says it is today.
That is a fallacy. A young Earth can't be ruled out. What happens if evidence is found that carbon really doesn't have a constant rate of decay?
Science has never observed a species evolve into a new species or viewed a gain of new information in any thing. Viewing a species adapt or observing a loss of information is completely different and actaully go along with what the Bible teaches.
Late_Cretaceous said:It never fails to amaze me how people can have each and every point they make refuted and demonstrated to be incorrect and yet still keep on the same track. I once had a girlfriend who said she would argue with people even when she knew she was in the wrong. And it was true, and she loved to argue just for the sake of argument. I don't know, maybe it's a ego thing.
Jig said:So the truth is out...you guys really do think YECist are stupid.
What happens if a 'new' discovery proves a young Earth? You can not leave that out as a possiblity. True?
Um...what are you getting at? I like to use the word adaptation. The word evolution gets people mixed up.
You do realize this applies to mostly your side of study and theory...20 years ago the guess of the Earths age was quite less then what science says it is today.
It really does sadden me to see Christians relay on the world and its ways to find comfort in their faith.
That is a fallacy. A young Earth can't be ruled out. What happens if evidence is found that carbon really doesn't have a constant rate of decay?
Science has never observed a species evolve into a new species or viewed a gain of new information in any thing.
Viewing a species adapt or observing a loss of information is completely different and actaully go along with what the Bible teaches.
Science has never observed a species evolve into a new species
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html5.0 Observed Instances of Speciation
The following are several examples of observations of speciation.
5.1.2 Animals
Speciation through hybridization and/or polyploidy has long been considered much less important in animals than in plants [[[refs.]]]. A number of reviews suggest that this view may be mistaken. (Lokki and Saura 1980; Bullini and Nascetti 1990; Vrijenhoek 1994). Bullini and Nasceti (1990) review chromosomal and genetic evidence that suggest that speciation through hybridization may occur in a number of insect species, including walking sticks, grasshoppers, blackflies and cucurlionid beetles. Lokki and Saura (1980) discuss the role of polyploidy in insect evolution. Vrijenhoek (1994) reviews the literature on parthenogenesis and hybridogenesis in fish. I will tackle this topic in greater depth in the next version of this document.
5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum
Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).
5.3.2 Disruptive Selection on Drosophila melanogaster
Thoday and Gibson (1962) established a population of Drosophila melanogaster from four gravid females. They applied selection on this population for flies with the highest and lowest numbers of sternoplural chaetae (hairs). In each generation, eight flies with high numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed and eight flies with low numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed. Periodically they performed mate choice experiments on the two lines. They found that they had produced a high degree of positive assortative mating between the two groups. In the decade or so following this, eighteen labs attempted unsuccessfully to reproduce these results. References are given in Thoday and Gibson 1970.
5.4.1 A Test of the Founder-flush Hypothesis Using Houseflies
Meffert and Bryant (1991) used houseflies to test whether bottlenecks in populations can cause permanent alterations in courtship behavior that lead to premating isolation. They collected over 100 flies of each sex from a landfill near Alvin, Texas. These were used to initiate an ancestral population. From this ancestral population they established six lines. Two of these lines were started with one pair of flies, two lines were started with four pairs of flies and two lines were started with sixteen pairs of flies. These populations were flushed to about 2,000 flies each. They then went through five bottlenecks followed by flushes. This took 35 generations. Mate choice tests were performed. One case of positive assortative mating was found. One case of negative assortative mating was also found.
5.5.1 Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella)
Rhagoletis pomonella is a fly that is native to North America. Its normal host is the hawthorn tree. Sometime during the nineteenth century it began to infest apple trees. Since then it has begun to infest cherries, roses, pears and possibly other members of the rosaceae. Quite a bit of work has been done on the differences between flies infesting hawthorn and flies infesting apple. There appear to be differences in host preferences among populations. Offspring of females collected from on of these two hosts are more likely to select that host for oviposition (Prokopy et al. 1988). Genetic differences between flies on these two hosts have been found at 6 out of 13 allozyme loci (Feder et al. 1988, see also McPheron et al. 1988). Laboratory studies have shown an asynchrony in emergence time of adults between these two host races (Smith 1988). Flies from apple trees take about 40 days to mature, whereas flies from hawthorn trees take 54-60 days to mature. This makes sense when we consider that hawthorn fruit tends to mature later in the season that apples. Hybridization studies show that host preferences are inherited, but give no evidence of barriers to mating. This is a very exciting case. It may represent the early stages of a sympatric speciation event (considering the dispersal of R. pomonella to other plants it may even represent the beginning of an adaptive radiation). It is important to note that some of the leading researchers on this question are urging caution in interpreting it. Feder and Bush (1989) stated:"Hawthorn and apple "host races" of R. pomonella may therefore represent incipient species. However, it remains to be seen whether host-associated traits can evolve into effective enough barriers to gene flow to result eventually in the complete reproductive isolation of R. pomonella populations."5.5.2 Gall Former Fly (Eurosta solidaginis)
Eurosta solidaginis is a gall forming fly that is associated with goldenrod plants. It has two hosts: over most of its range it lays its eggs in Solidago altissima, but in some areas it uses S. gigantea as its host. Recent electrophoretic work has shown that the genetic distances among flies from different sympatric hosts species are greater than the distances among flies on the same host in different geographic areas (Waring et al. 1990). This same study also found reduced variability in flies on S. gigantea. This suggests that some E. solidaginis have recently shifted hosts to this species. A recent study has compared reproductive behavior of the flies associated with the two hosts (Craig et al. 1993). They found that flies associated with S. gigantea emerge earlier in the season than flies associated with S. altissima. In host choice experiments, each fly strain ovipunctured its own host much more frequently than the other host. Craig et al. (1993) also performed several mating experiments. When no host was present and females mated with males from either strain, if males from only one strain were present. When males of both strains were present, statistically significant positive assortative mating was seen. In the presence of a host, assortative mating was also seen. When both hosts and flies from both populations were present, females waited on the buds of the host that they are normally associated with. The males fly to the host to mate. Like the Rhagoletis case above, this may represent the beginning of a sympatric speciation.
5.6 Flour Beetles (Tribolium castaneum)
Halliburton and Gall (1981) established a population of flour beetles collected in Davis, California. In each generation they selected the 8 lightest and the 8 heaviest pupae of each sex. When these 32 beetles had emerged, they were placed together and allowed to mate for 24 hours. Eggs were collected for 48 hours. The pupae that developed from these eggs were weighed at 19 days. This was repeated for 15 generations. The results of mate choice tests between heavy and light beetles was compared to tests among control lines derived from randomly chosen pupae. Positive assortative mating on the basis of size was found in 2 out of 4 experimental lines.
5.7 Speciation in a Lab Rat Worm, Nereis acuminata
In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses.
WH × WH - 75% P1 × P1 - 95% P2 × P2 - 80% P1 × P2 - 77% WH × P1 - 0% WH × P2 - 0% They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations.
And so it has... even Creationists have reluctantly accepted evolution... once they renamed it "micro-evolution" or "variation within a 'kind.'"
Well, if that should happen... for starters, your argument about science always changing would itself suddenly change its tune... now that it's changed in a way you approve of, you would no longer see it as a liability.
KerrMetric said:Since 99.9% of the YEC's are not in any way scientifically trained what they are doing is usually propagating memes.
This explains why most of the YEC world use the same arguments for decades and with the decades old (or more) data that is their "evidence".
For want of a better word it is folklore.
Well, you see, that's the nice thing about evolution. It is both theory and fact. The fact that evolution occurs now and has occured in the past isn't going to ever change.Jig said:You have to remember what you believe in is a theory, not a fact.
nolidad said:Except of course the 10,000+ scientists with masters and doctorates who are signatories of the varied creation research societies. I could post list after list of creationsits who are PHDS workoing in the most premier labs of their fields who also chair departments of secualr colleges and have hundreds of patents to their names.
nolidad said:Except of course the 10,000+ scientists with masters and doctorates who are signatories of the varied creation research societies. I could post list after list of creationsits who are PHDS workoing in the most premier labs of their fields who also chair departments of secualr colleges and have hundreds of patents to their names.
And you are committing an argument-from-authority fallacy for every one of those signatories who do not possess a degree in a relevant field (biology or geology). How about giving us a meaningful figure this time?nolidad said:Except of course the 10,000+ scientists with masters and doctorates who are signatories of the varied creation research societies. I could post list after list of creationsits who are PHDS workoing in the most premier labs of their fields who also chair departments of secualr colleges and have hundreds of patents to their names.
nolidad said:Except of course the 10,000+ scientists with masters and doctorates who are signatories of the varied creation research societies. I could post list after list of creationsits who are PHDS workoing in the most premier labs of their fields who also chair departments of secualr colleges and have hundreds of patents to their names.
mark kennedy said:I think you should quote that passage in context:
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creations of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because althought they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futitile in their thoughts, and their fooolish hearts were darkened. Profesing to be wise they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man-and birds and four footed animals and creeping things."
(Romans 1:18-23)
Any interest in how this passage continues?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?