Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[renniks]

No, it cannot. Nor does the theory of evolution claim that it can.

Then how does one get from a single cell organism to a giraffe?

 

[Speedwell]

Then how does one get from a single cell organism to a giraffe?

By random variation and natural selection. Natural selection, by itself, doesn't create anything--it merely selects.

 

[renniks]

By random variation and natural selection. Natural selection, by itself, doesn't create anything--it merely selects.

You can't get there from here
That's like saying you can create a lear jet with the parts of a unicycle.

 

[Speedwell]

You can't get there from here
That's like saying you can create a lear jet with the parts of a unicycle.

How so? A Lear jet and a unicycle are made up of different parts. The various living creatures are made up of similar parts--eukaryotic cells.

 

[Frank Robert]

That's not an explanation. That's an assertion.

It is a fact not an assertion. I gave you a personal example for yourself. It should be obvious that selecting a mate is not random.

Natural selection cannot generate brand new genetic information.

Who is making the claim that natural selection is generating information?

Red foxes in most parts of North America have bald foot pads. But, in some super cold areas, they grow hair that covers the footpad. This is natural selection.

Yes it is. I am glad you now understand that the evolution process of natural selection is neither blind nor random.

The information is built into their DNA

Thanks for an excellent example of a creationist assertion. It would not be an assertion if the creationists would develop an hypothesis that can be examined using the scientific method but they have problems even defining it. See:
Information Theory and Creationism

This information can't mutate a fox into a kangaroo or a bobcat.

You are correct they can't, who is making that claim? I assure you it is not evolutionists.

What creationists fail to consider is that is that the fox and the bobcat are both in the Carnivora order which means:

Cats and dogs had a common ancestor, and here it is

New fossils of Dormaalocyon latouri, a 55 million-year-old species believed to be closely linked to the origin of carnivoraformes – carnivorous mammals such as cats, dogs, bears, and weasels – were recently uncovered by scientists in the village of Dormaal (after which the animal’s genus was named) in Belgium.

You mention "kinds" please explain what a kind is, how to distinguish between them and what science supports their existence.

 

[Astrid]

Then how does one get from a single cell organism to a giraffe?

By way of simple multicellular paganism such as the sponge or hydra.
And increasingly complex ones, step by step.

If you remember your high school biology, a sponge has cells of different appearance
performing different functions.

But each cell is capable of existing in its own and forming a new
sponge.

Almost like a transitional species, you might say.

 

[renniks]

It is a fact not an assertion. I gave you a personal example for yourself. It should be obvious that selecting a mate is not random.


Who is making the claim that natural selection is generating information?


Yes it is. I am glad you now understand that the evolution process of natural selection is neither blind nor random.


Thanks for an excellent example of a creationist assertion. It would not be an assertion if the creationists would develop an hypothesis that can be examined using the scientific method but they have problems even defining it. See:
Information Theory and Creationism


You are correct they can't, who is making that claim? I assure you it is not evolutionists.

What creationists fail to consider is that is that the fox and the bobcat are both in the Carnivora order which means:

Cats and dogs had a common ancestor, and here it is

New fossils of Dormaalocyon latouri, a 55 million-year-old species believed to be closely linked to the origin of carnivoraformes – carnivorous mammals such as cats, dogs, bears, and weasels – were recently uncovered by scientists in the village of Dormaal (after which the animal’s genus was named) in Belgium.

You mention "kinds" please explain what a kind is, how to distinguish between them and what science supports their existence.

Just an extinct feline.
The interpretation of the beast from Belgium as the ancestral answer to the origin of modern mammalian carnivores is based on a number of unverifiable assumptions. Yes I know they are both carnivores, but they're different kinds of carnivores.

There is no biological evidence for the divergence of canines, cats, and bears from a common carnivorous ancestor.
Biological observation reveals that animals reproduce and vary only within their created kinds.
So anything else is speculation.
Don't think they even have a complete skeleton to go by, so lots of speculation involved.

 

[Speedwell]

Just an extinct feline.
The interpretation of the beast from Belgium as the ancestral answer to the origin of modern mammalian carnivores is based on a number of unverifiable assumptions. Yes I know they are both carnivores, but they're different kinds of carnivores.

There is no biological evidence for the divergence of canines, cats, and bears from a common carnivorous ancestor.
Biological observation reveals that animals reproduce and vary only within their created kinds.
So anything else is speculation.
Don't think they even have a complete skeleton to go by, so lots of speculation involved.

Biological evidence has not even revealed that there is such a thing as a "created kind."

 

[Frank Robert]

Then how does one get from a single cell organism to a giraffe?

Time + evolutionary processes + patience
Timeline of the evolutionary history of life

 

[AV1611VET]

Biological evidence has not even revealed that there is such a thing as a "created kind."

"Kind" is one of those words science Arab-phoned to "genus," then claims the Bible is wrong.

Kind = Genus

Science today is not Bible-friendly.

 

[Speedwell]

"Kind" is one of those words science Arab-phoned to "genus," then claims the Bible is wrong.

Kind = Genus

Science today is not Bible-friendly.

The term and concept "genus" predates the Bible by centuries.

 

[AV1611VET]

The term and concept "genus" predates the Bible by centuries.

Of course it does.

 

[Frank Robert]

Just an extinct feline.
The interpretation of the beast from Belgium as the ancestral answer to the origin of modern mammalian carnivores is based on a number of unverifiable assumptions. Yes I know they are both carnivores, but they're different kinds of carnivores.

You are right we don't know all the facts but there is so much sporting evidence what we do have plus every new fossil found has been predicted from the facts we have plus cladistics can also be used to predict properties of yet-to-be discovered organisms.

There is no biological evidence for the divergence of canines, cats, and bears from a common carnivorous ancestor.

Sure there is. You haven't even looked at all the sources I provided. Read them then get back to me so we can intelligently discuss them.

Biological observation reveals that animals reproduce and vary only within their created kinds.

You have not defined what kinds are or given any evidence kinds are anything more than a undefined word used in the bible. Nor have you explained what you mean by information.

So anything else is speculation.

You have not looked at or don't understand the sources I provided so you don't have any idea of what your are refuting. Here is the source again:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Don't think they even have a complete skeleton to go by, so lots of speculation involved.

I can't make sense out of this.

 

[VirOptimus]

Ah, another one with nothing but insults. These threads seem to grow posters who stand and throw stones while contributing nothing to the conversation.

I give the answers the posts deserve.

 

[Astrid]

Just an extinct feline.
The interpretation of the beast from Belgium as the ancestral answer to the origin of modern mammalian carnivores is based on a number of unverifiable assumptions. Yes I know they are both carnivores, but they're different kinds of carnivores.

There is no biological evidence for the divergence of canines, cats, and bears from a common carnivorous ancestor.
Biological observation reveals that animals reproduce and vary only within their created kinds.
So anything else is speculation.
Don't think they even have a complete skeleton to go by, so lots of speculation involved.

One has to be impressed that anyone could have
found the one true version of the one true religion.
considering the odds.

Even more impressive is to know more about
biology / paleontology than anyone who has spent
their lifetime in study....without ever lifting a finger!

 

[chad kincham]

Congratulations, you've just reduced thousands of years of Christian theology down to an insurance policy.

Ever hear of Pascal’s wager?

 

[chad kincham]

There is punishment in hell and also possibly punishment in the Lake of Fire too for a time before one is erased from existence. So yeah, not sure why you would want to go through all that suffering and pain for no good reason. Surely a life of sin is not worth it. I am sure those who are in hell are not saying it was worth the life of sin that they lived. How do I know?

The rich man in hell said to Abraham across the great gulf:

“I pray thee therefore, father, that
thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
For I have five brethren;
that he may testify unto them,
lest they also come into this place of torment.”
(Luke 16:27-28).​

So as we can see, this place of torments was so bad for the rich man that he wanted to warn his family so as to avoid the place where he was at. If it wasn't all that bad, he wouldn't have worried about warning his family.

Except God made us in His image, and thus made us eternal spirits and put us in a mortal home called a physical body.

 

[chad kincham]

Well since there is no empirical evidence that life can be generated from non life or that nothing can become something reality would require acceptance of the existence of God.

The problem is that evolutionary theory is not objective at all. All data is not only interpreted through a presupposition of naturalism, but a demand that all data is interpreted through naturalistic materialism.

Creationists look at the same data, but interpret that data differently.

 

[chad kincham]

Based on what?

Either you are no longer yourself, or you are still yourself with your emotions, thoughts and powers to contemplate eternity doing...... what? You haven't thought about it. Try thinking what eternity as yourself would be like. Consider that part of the joy of anything is knowing that it is a temporary state and will come to an end. An eternity of anything is a truly horrific thought.

As if an eternity sans pain,suffering, sorrow, that is full of love and joy, is something to be feared.

 

[Astrid]

The problem is that evolutionary theory is not objective at all. All data is not only interpreted through a presupposition of naturalism, but a demand that all data is interpreted through naturalistic materialism.

Creationists look at the same data, but interpret that data differently.

Not that moldy nonsense again!

Tell us why if evolution is so wrong nobody can ever find one flaw?