Issues with Creation

[Bushido216]

How many fish do you flopping up on land? Very few.

Ever see an amphibian? I rest my case.

 

[Bushido216]

Theistic Evolution is just a disgusting compromise of both evolution and creationism.

Creationism complies with not only science but also the Bible. The Bible says God created in 6 literal days.

Evolution was a theory thought up by MAN to explain the world without using God as an influence or as creator.

Theistic Evolution just adds God into the equation of evolution. When you do that anything is possible because you supernatural powers mixed in.

I hate TE and OEC more than I do the common atheistic evolution belief. I hate it more because all it did was make the impossible (evolution) possible by saying God did it. Once you say "God did it" anything that would normally be thought as folly can then be plausible.

It's like mixing a liberal with a conservative and getting a 'whatever'. When you mix those two you get someone who has morals (the conservative) but compromises them to appeal to all (the liberal). That's what TE/OEC are, compromises that appeal to lies to attract those not willing to believe in creationism.

God said one thing, OEC/TE/Evolution defy it but I believe it.

Actually, you have interpreted a man-made story inspired by God, not written by God as saying that God made the Universe in six literal days.

Infact, you're annoyance at TE's saying "God did it" is rather ironic.

The fact is that God gave us His Creation to study so that we may better understand Him. In the pursuit of that study Man has learned many things about God's Creation, including plate tectonics, transistors, the structure of D.N.A., and baseball. We also discovered the process that God set up to keep species as finely tuned to their environments as possible. The intracacies and complexities of evolution give more glory to God than simply saying "Goddidit!"

 

[Underdog77]

Ert! Wrong-o, try again.

Evolution is about small changes, with each transition being beneficial to the population involved. This works with wings, eyes, and yes, even fins.

I'm sorry but the change from a fish to a reptile is major. Did it take place all at once? I never said it did (although there are some who believe it). Nevertheless, these changes if they happen slowly, just little bit per 'population' still leave a 'half this half that' form. With slow changes we still ought to find half-and-half organisms/body parts/etc... No?

I've already debunked your wild notion that transitionals are individual organisms, not populations. How you ever came by that notion is beyond me.

I didn't ever say it was one line of individual organisms, how you came by that notion is beyond me.

Even so, populations are made up by what? Individuals! There must be at least one individual who makes a change or is born changed before it can reproduce and therefore create a population.

 

[Bushido216]

That's insane! The fish that have today are either the same fish that existed 'millions' of years ago or fish that have evolved further than those 'millions' of years ago.

There are better chances of fishing flopping today than millions of years because they have had all that time to evolve!

Your understanding is so wildly limited it's almost comical.

In the earlier parts of Earth's history, many niche's were left open. Thus, any population that acquired a mutation that would allow them to explore a new niche (such as the first fish to flop onto land, so to speak) would have had no competition from organisms already there.

Any fish attempting to "flop" now would face severe competition not only from the environment, but from populations of species already occupying that niche.

As well, fish had spent quite a bit of time specializing in things such as swimming an underwater breathing. Evolution now isn't about changing niche's so much as specializing to current environments.

 

[Bushido216]

Give me a site, a book, an article, or point me in the right direction so that I may read about evolution being observed.

Seriously, if it has been observed then that would be something so miraculous that scientists would have published it somewhere.

We cannot observe Adam Smith's invisible hand. We can, however, see it's effects.

Thus, we cannot observe evolution directly since large phenotypal / genotypal changes take a long time to accumulate. However, we can observe the effects.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/http://talkorigins.org

 

[Underdog77]

Actually, lucaspa is one of the most intelligent and detail-oriented people I've ever met, much less on these forums. He can back up everything he says with links and references. Can you do that?

Intelligent and detial oriented doesn't mean you are correct and truthful. J.R.R. Tolkein was extremely intelligent and detailed oriented, but that doesn't mean the Lord of the Rings is true. I've talked to Lucaspa many times and much of what he says is wrong biblically, scientifically, and logically.

Most of what I say can be backed up by links, references, and science. Also much of what I say is just taking what we know and throwing in some logic and common sense.

But also about his links and things, just because they are posted on the internet or just because the are written in a book and called truth doesn't mean they are correct. A prime example is "The Da Vinci Code". It claims to be truth but is packed full of lies.

There was once a man who said "If you say something loud enough and long enough people will believe it." Don't believe everything you hear.

 

[Underdog77]

The Bible as you see it.

The Bible as it is written.

 

[Bushido216]

1) There must have been one that evolved first. Without the first one then the population could never have been produced. I understand your thinking in that the population changed but there must have been that first one that changed just little.

2) Even thinking the populations evolved, there still ought to be transitional forms. And if you believe the populations evolved, there ought to be millions and millions (and that's a conservative number...I'm proud to be a conservative Christian ) of transitional fossils.

Gradual or not there ought to be fossils, and many of them, where we can see intermediate bodies.

1) Obviously, that first one would have changed just a little. However, unless that change was beneficial natural selection would select against the change. Assuming the change was beneficial that organism would have passed on the changes to future generations when it had a chance to mate.

Obviously that advantage doesn't guarantee its continued survival. An increased ability to detect scents in the wind for a wildebeast wouldn't save it from a drought or tripping and breaking its legs. However, when you understand that every organism born into that population has a chance to carry a beneficial mutation, the likelihood of having a successful mutation being passed on goes up significantly.

2) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html // http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html

 

[Underdog77]

Ever see an amphibian? I rest my case.

Is an amphibian a fish?

 

[Bushido216]

I'm sorry but the change from a fish to a reptile is major. Did it take place all at once? I never said it did (although there are some who believe it). Nevertheless, these changes if they happen slowly, just little bit per 'population' still leave a 'half this half that' form. With slow changes we still ought to find half-and-half organisms/body parts/etc... No?

I didn't ever say it was one line of individual organisms, how you came by that notion is beyond me.

Even so, populations are made up by what? Individuals! There must be at least one individual who makes a change or is born changed before it can reproduce and therefore create a population.

We do find these half-and-half's, in the fossil record.

I see your point about individuals and populations. I responded already so I won't belabour the point.

 

[Bushido216]

The Bible as it is written.

Words are words. The meaning attached to them is what is important.

 

[Bushido216]

Is an amphibian a fish?

It's not. That, however, is my point. You'll note that they live part of their lives in the water and part out. They have webbed feet, can last a long time underwater, and are pretty much an in-between for land and water organisms.

 

[Underdog77]

Actually, you have interpreted a man-made story inspired by God, not written by God as saying that God made the Universe in six literal days.

So you claim it is man-made, do you therefore declare it unreliable?

Infact, you're annoyance at TE's saying "God did it" is rather ironic.

The fact is that God gave us His Creation to study so that we may better understand Him. In the pursuit of that study Man has learned many things about God's Creation, including plate tectonics, transistors, the structure of D.N.A., and baseball. We also discovered the process that God set up to keep species as finely tuned to their environments as possible. The intracacies and complexities of evolution give more glory to God than simply saying "Goddidit!"

Most of that is your opinion. I find more glory being given to God when people trust His Word, His power, and His foresight by believing in creationism than I do in compromising His word, formating His power to modern beliefs, and saying that the Bible does not tell us what God wanted to tell us.

 

[Underdog77]

It's not. That, however, is my point. You'll note that they live part of their lives in the water and part out. They have webbed feet, can last a long time underwater, and are pretty much an in-between for land and water organisms.

It is not a fish and you have avoided my question: How many fish do you see flopping onto the land? Very few .

Secondly, just cause a frog can do some pretty cool things like a fish doesn't necessarily mean it was a fish! Humans can do things like a fish, humans can do somethings like a cat, a cat can do somethings like a human. What does this mean? Absolutely nothing!

Just because we share some abilities doesn't mean we are biologically related.

 

[Underdog77]

Your understanding is so wildly limited it's almost comical.

In the earlier parts of Earth's history, many niche's were left open. Thus, any population that acquired a mutation that would allow them to explore a new niche (such as the first fish to flop onto land, so to speak) would have had no competition from organisms already there.

Any fish attempting to "flop" now would face severe competition not only from the environment, but from populations of species already occupying that niche.

As well, fish had spent quite a bit of time specializing in things such as swimming an underwater breathing. Evolution now isn't about changing niche's so much as specializing to current environments.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Does anyone find any logic or sense in this?

 

[Dark_Lite]

Intelligent and detial oriented doesn't mean you are correct and truthful. J.R.R. Tolkein was extremely intelligent and detailed oriented, but that doesn't mean the Lord of the Rings is true. I've talked to Lucaspa many times and much of what he says is wrong biblically, scientifically, and logically.

Most of what I say can be backed up by links, references, and science. Also much of what I say is just taking what we know and throwing in some logic and common sense.

But also about his links and things, just because they are posted on the internet or just because the are written in a book and called truth doesn't mean they are correct. A prime example is "The Da Vinci Code". It claims to be truth but is packed full of lies.

There was once a man who said "If you say something loud enough and long enough people will believe it." Don't believe everything you hear.

/me checks the irony meter.

There went another one :o

 

[Bushido216]

So you claim it is man-made, do you therefore declare it unreliable?

Most of that is your opinion. I find more glory being given to God when people trust His Word, His power, and His foresight by believing in creationism than I do in compromising His word, formating His power to modern beliefs, and saying that the Bible does not tell us what God wanted to tell us.

I claim that the Bible as anything but a treatise on theological matters is unreliable. Despite the gap between its writing and the present day, the countless translations and re-translations, and the obvious culture differences, the theology remains as clear as ever. To me, that is what is meant by Inspired and Preserved by God.

To claim, however, that you know what God wanted us to know is HUBRIS to the highest degree. We cannot possibly know God's mind on this, and we can only take away from the Good Book what it each means to us. Why do you think that God's people are split into different religions, and those religions into different denominations? Judaism, Christianity, (and if you're willing to accept it) Islam all have radically different takes on God and the divinities thereof. To claim that you of all people can understand God's intentions is ludicrous.

On a personal note, I find God's foresight to be much greater when I consider that God allowed species to change and evolve over time, becoming more specialized to changing environmental conditions rather than making them immutable (like most pre-1859 people believed).

 

[Bushido216]

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Does anyone find any logic or sense in this?

I'll break this down for you.

Early on in Earth's history, especially before land-based organisms began to evolve, many niche's were open. The organisms simply weren't there to occupy them. Thus, a species attempting to, say, move onto land would be able to move into this niche because it was open.

However, if later on another organism attempted to move into the same niche, it would be out-competed by the current occupant of that niche.

Think of it like this. When a corporation opens up a new division, there are plenty of jobs available and people can jockey for position and become comfortable in their new roles. However, once everyone is set, it'd be mighty difficult for someone to try and take a job already occupied, wouldn't it?

 

[Underdog77]

We do find these half-and-half's, in the fossil record.

I have seen no indisputable half-and-half.

 

[Bushido216]

It is not a fish and you have avoided my question: How many fish do you see flopping onto the land? Very few .

Secondly, just cause a frog can do some pretty cool things like a fish doesn't necessarily mean it was a fish! Humans can do things like a fish, humans can do somethings like a cat, a cat can do somethings like a human. What does this mean? Absolutely nothing!

Just because we share some abilities doesn't mean we are biologically related.

You have completely missed the point of all of my posts.

As to the amphibian bit. Yes, we can do many things a fish can do, like swim. However, when one species shares morphological traits with another species, it is indicative of relatedness. I'm not claiming that fish and amphibians are related. I'm more indicating a path through which land organisms could have evolved back into water based animals or vica versa.