If evolution were wrong, it means ...

[Mallon]

No. There is no 'descent with modification' except within the family/order of the organism.

How do you know that? How do you know that descent with modification occurs outside the boundaries of, say, the genus? Have you ever seen one genus give rise to another? I would LOVE to know how you can infer evolution within families.

 

[Calypsis4]

How do you know that? How do you know that descent with modification occurs outside the boundaries of, say, the genus? Have you ever seen one genus give rise to another? I would LOVE to know how you can infer evolution within families.

1. So says scientific observation.
2. So says God's Word that all organisms produce offspring after 'its kind'.


Now if you can undo the evidence like that of the experiment of 50,000 generations of drosophila flies that produced...guess what(?)...drosophilas...by giving evidence that one organism became a different organism (genetically speaking) then do so. But the fact is you can't. They don't exist.


Bats are in many varieties but are still bats. Dogs change but are still dogs. Cats vary but are still cats. Mice vary but are still mice. And bacteria also changes but are still bacteria. There is nothing you can do to change that.

 

[Papias]

Calypsis wrote:

Variation within the kind...yes, but no change from one class of organism into another is ever seen.

Watch Calypsis move those goalposts! Farther and farther, retreating from the evidence, stretching the word "kind" to mean whatever they want. First, creationists claimed that animals didn't evolve, period. Then they admitted that evolution happened within species (microevolution), but that species never evolved into different species (macroevolution).

But then speciation events (the evolution of new species) was observed.

Remember the classification system:

Domain
Kingdom
phylum
class
order
family
genus
species

Whenever evolution is observed, the creationists simply go up the list as far as needed to include both the new and the old organism under a common name, and they say "but the worms stayed worms!" (phylum level), or whatever, as needed.

Note that calypsis just stated that he is fine with the idea of a tree shrew like creature evolving into a human being (both mammals, at the class level).

maybe get a job as an assistant coach? Then you can continue to move goalposts all day, and get paid for it.


Papias.



PS - wow, Calypsis added a post with more examples before I could even post this. This time, he goes right to the top - "bacteria stayed bacteria" (at the Domain level). That's like saying " the single celled microorganisms, when they evolved into mammoths, didn't show evolution, because they stayed Eukaryotes!".

 

[troodon]

to the laws of entropy are all against the formation of life on any world including earth.

Calypsis, can you state your laws of entropy in such a way that they can account for this mineral being formed by redox reactions in water?

or this forming from cooling magma?

I have a feeling that your definition of 'entropy' precludes the creation of crystals as well.

2. So says God's Word that all organisms produce offspring after 'its kind'.

Take a quick look at the Gospel of John and see if the Bible really is the 'Word'.

 

[Mallon]

1. So says scientific observation.
2. So says God's Word that all organisms produce offspring after 'its kind'.

1. We have not observed the evolution of, say, dogs from a single canine ancestor. It must therefore be inferred. Evolution within families is inferred the same way it is inferred outside of families (i.e., via homology). So if you're going to say that we can safely infer evolution within families, then the same must necessarily be true of evolution outside of families.
2. Actually, the Bible never equates "kinds" with the taxonomic family. Please don't change Scripture. Scripture implies that different kinds of animals exist, but it doesn't tell us how they are defined.

Now if you can undo the evidence like that of the experiment of 50,000 generations of drosophila flies that produced...guess what(?)...drosophilas...by giving evidence that one organism became a different organism (genetically speaking) then do so. But the fact is you can't. They don't exist.

You do know that Drosophila is a genus, not a family, right? You've essentially deflated your own argument that evolution can occur outside of the genus. You would know that if you had a basic understanding of biology.

Bats are in many varieties but are still bats. Dogs change but are still dogs. Cats vary but are still cats. Mice vary but are still mice. And bacteria also changes but are still bacteria. There is nothing you can do to change that.

I could just as easily argue that vertebrates come in many varieties but are still vertebrates. Bilaterians come in many varieties but are still bilaterians. Metazoans come in many varieties but are still metazoans. Life comes in many varieties but it's still life. We must therefore all be descended from a single ancestor.

How do you like them apples?

 

[Smidlee]

Calypsis, can you state your laws of entropy in such a way that they can account for this mineral being formed by redox reactions in water?

or this forming from cooling magma?

I have a feeling that your definition of 'entropy' precludes the creation of crystals as well.


Take a quick look at the Gospel of John and see if the Bible really is the 'Word'.

Neither one of those pictures looked alive to me.
As far as crystals I've only seen crystals store information or energy in Sci Fi shows like Star Trek and Stargate.
Now if a volcano spit out Mount Rushmore that would be something.

 

[troodon]

Neither one of those pictures looked alive to me.
As far as crystals I've only seen crystals store information or energy in Sci Fi shows like Star Trek and Stargate.
Now if a volcano spit out Mount Rushmore that would be something.

Smid! My man! Could you do me a favor? Could you define 'entropy' for me in such a way that cubic crystals (read: organization) can form from magma (read: chaos) but life cannot become more complex over time?

<Staff edit>

 

[laconicstudent]

No, I'm pretty sure I accept Evolution because we have actual scientific evidence for it, and I accept a round earth because we send people into space on a regular basis.

Space Station Over the Ionian Sea
Credit: STS-118 Shuttle Crew, NASA

 

[it'sme]

No, I'm pretty sure I accept Evolution because we have actual scientific evidence for it, and I accept a round earth because we send people into space on a regular basis.

And the bible said that long before any modern scientists.
Look at that picture and compare it to the other planets.
Some one thought about what would be beautiful for life.

 

[Mallon]

And the bible said that long before any modern scientists.
Look at that picture and compare it to the other planets.
Some one thought about what would be beautiful for life.

Not true. We disproved that assumption of yours back on page 8.

 

[Smidlee]

Smid! My man! Could you do me a favor? Could you define 'entropy' for me in such a way that cubic crystals (read: organization) can form from magma (read: chaos) but life cannot become more complex over time?

Both a dead cell and a living cell has organization. A living cell has to fight against both time and entropy to stay "alive", a rock don't. Science has problems defining "life" yet everyone knows it when they see it.

 

[troodon]

Both a dead cell and a living cell has organization. A cell has to fight against both time and entropy to stay alive, a rock don't. Science has problems defining "life" yet everyone knows it when they see it.

Smid, we were discussing the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (Law of Entropy). If this is truly a law then it must apply to everything, be it animal, vegetable, or mineral.

I've found that most of the definitions Creationists throw around for the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes the creation of crystals in igneous rocks, that's why I was looking for a definition that did not preclude such a thing.

 

[Smidlee]

Smid, we were discussing the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (Law of Entropy). If this is truly a law then it must apply to everything, be it animal, vegetable, or mineral.

I've found that most of the definitions Creationists throw around for the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes the creation of crystals in igneous rocks, that's why I was looking for a definition that did not preclude such a thing.

Entropy can apply to more than just heat as many have noted before.

 

[Mallon]

I would love to see you answer troodon's question, Smidlee. So far, you seem to be trying to avoid it.

 

[Smidlee]

Matthew 7:13-14 "Enter ye at the strait gate: (entropy) for wide is the gate and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction and many there be which go in thereat:because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
I know Jesus were referring to the spiritual life which is much greater than the physical yet I 'm amazed how much this fits so well with physical life.
Entropy is the broad way which everything natural tries to go. Life is on the opposite extremely with many narrows path it must follow. It the same with my PC vs a rock (even a crystal). My PC is nothing but huge amount of narrow paths which electricity has to follow. If the electricity doesn't follow these extremely narrow paths then my pc doesn't work.

P.S I know life is more redundant than my pc but that doesn't make it simpler. For example, A PC game has to be more redundant than a console game because unlike consoles, PC gamers does not have the same hardware. This can make it tougher to program for PC.

 

[Calypsis4]

quote Papias; Calypsis wrote:


Watch Calypsis move those goalposts! Farther and farther, retreating from the evidence, stretching the word "kind" to mean whatever they want.

Look, genius; no matter where the goalposts are placed you will not ever see a dog become a non-dog no matter how long the time frame is applied. You will never see a bacterium become non-bacteria. You will never see a bird become a non-bird. The genetic limitations are there to be tested and retested all you wish but it won't happen.

You can perform your own experiment to prove this. Go plant flower seeds of any kind you wish and observe how long it takes to see a flower become wheat or how long it would take a rose to become a tree...of any kind. Knowing what kind of response that would bring (Oh, calypsis, you don't know how evolution works.) The truth is you don't even know that it doesn't work, period. You won't only not get a flow to become wheat or barley or oats you will never see it in ANY transitional stage between a flower and anything that is NOT a flower. That is the law of genetics that God created and there isn't anything you can do about it.

As far as the word 'kind' is concerned, its in the dictionary. Look it up.


First, creationists claimed that animals didn't evolve, period.

That is exactly correct. Evolution from one organism into a different organism has never occured on this planet. Ever.


Then they admitted that evolution happened within species
(microevolution), but that species never evolved into different species (macroevolution).

Horizontal changes within a variety of organisms is NOT evolution. What you believe requires something never observed: vertical evolution from one organism into a different organism. Dream on, it will never happen.

But then speciation events (the evolution of new species) was observed.

Speciation is mere change within a certain grouping of organism.

Remember the classification system:

Domain
Kingdom
phylum
class
order
family
genus
species

Tell me something, genius; Is the Linneaus classification system infallible? Yes/no?

Whenever evolution is observed, the creationists simply go up the list as far as needed to include both the new and the old organism under a common name, and they say "but the worms stayed worms!" (phylum level), or whatever, as needed.

Evolution is not observed. It does not exist.

Note that calypsis just stated that he is fine with the idea of a tree shrew like creature evolving into a human being (both mammals, at the class level).

I did? You have a healthy imagination.

maybe get a job as an assistant coach? Then you can continue to move goalposts all day, and get paid for it.

I'm retired.


Papias.

You need to repent for not believing the Word of God about the creation and how our world came about as it is today.

PS - wow, Calypsis added a post with more examples before I could even post this. This time, he goes right to the top - "bacteria stayed bacteria" (at the Domain level). That's like saying " the single celled microorganisms, when they evolved into mammoths, didn't show evolution, because they stayed Eukaryotes!".[/quote]

The truth is, skeptic, that you don't know if the first cell was a eukaryote or a prokaryote nor even if the first reproduction was sexual or asexual. You don't have a clue. Evolutionists don't know diddly squat about origins but they sure like people to think they do.

 

[laconicstudent]

I am amused by the invocation of completely baseless limits on mutation and arguments from personal ignorance. And the lack of proper quote tags.

 

[Calypsis4]

quote troodon; Calypsis, can you state your laws of entropy in such a way that they can account for this mineral being formed by redox reactions in water?

or this forming from cooling magma?

Yes, of course. Because nature is geometric itself on the molecular level to begin with. All physical elements are made up of spheres, pyramidial, quadrangular, hexagonal, etc. shapes. Why should this be a surprise?

The same argument for this as I stated above. All things were created orderly but nature by itself will not do much in the way of creating an order higher or more complex without being pre-programed by the One who made it.

BUT................you would have an argument if you could find nature doing this:

Or this:

Nature never produces anything with this degree of complexity on its own. The degree of specificity is much higher in these objects and such things must be intelligently designed.

Entropy is why we do not observe abiogenesis in nature. Nature is incapable of performing such tasks. It can only do what the Creator programed it to do.

I have a feeling that your definition of 'entropy' precludes the creation of crystals as well.

What I said above is clear enough.

Take a quick look at the Gospel of John and see if the Bible really is the 'Word'.

What a wasted argument. Should I take YOU at your WORD? Why should I believe your WORD? Answer me and then I will tell you why I asked this.

 

[laconicstudent]

We still haven't seen any evidence of limitations on Evolution by genetic mutation.

 

[troodon]

Yes, of course. Because nature is geometric itself on the molecular level to begin with. All physical elements are made up of spheres, pyramidial, quadrangular, hexagonal, etc. shapes. Why should this be a surprise?

It shouldn't be a surprise, it's natural. But you're assuming, without any basis in fact, that the formation of lipids, carbohydrates, and RNA sequences is impossible. Why? Why is geometric order possible but organic order impossible? What experiment, what law of nature, leads you to this conclusion?

I have a feeling that your definition of 'entropy' precludes the creation of crystals as well.

What I said above is clear enough.

It wasn't what I asked for. I asked you to define entropy, which should be an easy task if it is a law of nature, right?

Take a quick look at the Gospel of John and see if the Bible really is the 'Word'.

What a wasted argument. Should I take YOU at your WORD? Why should I believe your WORD? Answer me and then I will tell you why I asked this.

I didn't say to take me at my word for anything (though why you'd think I'm untrustworthy is beyond me), I suggested that you take a look at the use of the phrase "the Word" in the Gospel of John and see if you think it's referring to the Bible. Take a look:

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Is the Bible God?
And then again:

14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Was the Bible ever made flesh, Calypsis4?