Proof that Creationist belive in Evolution.

[Nathan45]

... I'm also still wondering how humans, plants, animals and a tropical rainforest made it from Mount Ararat to South America despite a global flood killing everything ~4000 years ago.

 

[TheOutsider]

Adaptation is not the same as evolving from an ape.

Only because Creationists like playing word games, such as making up things like macro-evolution.

 

[truth above all else]

It is said by conservative Christians that we came from two humans and just two humans, Adam and Eve, and that it is inpossibal for humans and all living things to change over time. So how is it possibal that we have different skin,eye and hair color? If all of the human race came from the same two humans and evolution is some kind of lie we would all be one skin color. Yet we have White, Black, Asian, Indi, Hispanic, Native American, Arab,ect. If we all came from the same two people with out evolution we all be White or all Black or all Asian. It is only poissibal with Evolution. So the Creationist must belive in some form of evolution for this to happen. Unless they belive a White coupe can have a Asian kid or black couple can some how have a Hispanic kid. If that was ture how come same race couples in this day and age cant have children of a different race?

oh dear , clearly the arbitrary term "evolution" can therefore be used to prove or disprove anything, and its terms of reference are associated with infinite boundaries. Try to understand that no one can deny the fact of change and development in nature;such as races of man, varieties of cats, dogs, fruit trees etc.This is not evolution as the term is clearly used in everyday conversation,it is only variation within a definite kind or species; it does not prove or even remotely suggest (unless you already believe this for non scientific reasons) that one kind of species develops into another .

 

[Nathan45]

oh dear , clearly the arbitrary term "evolution" can therefore be used to prove or disprove anything, and its terms of reference are associated with infinite boundaries. Try to understand that no one can deny the fact of change and development in nature;such as races of man, varieties of cats, dogs, fruit trees etc.This is not evolution as the term is clearly used in everyday conversation,it is only variation within a definite kind or species; it does not prove or even remotely suggest (unless you already believe this for non scientific reasons) that one kind of species develops into another .

Then I suppose this is an argument of semantics.

I have a question for you: When you talk about "Variation within a definite kind" of a species, do you agree that this results from what we would call "Natural Selection"

By that I mean, is the variation within a kind caused because unfit animals don't generally reproduce and fit generally animals do? And is it agreed that once once a "change" in a "kind" is established, the change is further passed down the line?

 

[truth above all else]

Then I suppose this is an argument of semantics.

I have a question for you: When you talk about "Variation within a definite kind" of a species, do you agree that this results from what we would call "Natural Selection"

By that I mean, is the variation within a kind caused because unfit animals don't generally reproduce and fit generally animals do? And is it agreed that once once a "change" in a "kind" is established, the change is further passed down the line?

Again no-one can deny that the properties of creatures can be changed; and yet again this is not proof of evolution unless it can be shown that one kind of species can be changed into another, and furthermore, that every species changes into another in an uninterrupted chain back to the most primitive organism

 

[Nathan45]

Again no-one can deny that the properties of creatures can be changed; and yet again this is not proof of evolution unless it can be shown that one kind of species can be changed into another, and furthermore, that every species changes into another in an uninterrupted chain back to the most primitive organism

But they are changed through natural selection, right? Even though you didn't directly answer, You agree to that much?

 

[Nathan45]

... I'm simply trying to establish what can be agreed upon,

also I think that the evidence is very strong that animals do have a common ancestry, but that wasn't really the topic of this post, so we can debate that somewhere else.

But, furthermore, not that many species could fit into the arc, so evolution must have been happening pretty quickly "within kinds" for us to see the diversity we see today.

Now, if, hypothetically, the earth were billions of years old, do you think it would be possible for those same natural forces to create entirely new kinds?

 

[horuhe00]

Either that, or God set boundaries that nature cannot cross.

[bible]Psalm 74:17[/bible]

Please explain the context of the text.

 

[truth above all else]

But they are changed through natural selection, right? Even though you didn't directly answer, You agree to that much?

Again the question of variation is one thing, and must be distinguished from evolution. Variations never produce anything new; they only result in a different variety of dog or bean or person.In fact this is more of a proof against evolution because no-one has been able to come up with a new kind of creature(unless one considers a maladapted mutant fruit fly)By its grandiose conception evolution as such cannot be proved by the small variations observable by science. You must try to abandon metaphysical schemes which strive to extrapolate small changes into an all encompassing principle. If the latter is true, let it come naturally from the data without forcing an interpretation on the facts

 

[Nathan45]

Again the question of variation is one thing, and must be distinguished from evolution. Variations never produce anything new; they only result in a different variety of dog or bean or person.In fact this is more of a proof against evolution because no-one has been able to come up with a new kind of creature(unless one considers a maladapted mutant fruit fly)By its grandiose conception evolution as such cannot be proved by the small variations observable by science. You must try to abandon metaphysical schemes which strive to extrapolate small changes into an all encompassing principle. If the latter is true, let it come naturally from the data without forcing an interpretation on the facts

... still havn't directly answered the question on whether the changes are due to natural selection, Could I could get an answer that includes a "yes" or "no" to the question of "Natural selection?"

But another question to follow:

Humans and apes use the Genetic Code, which is a rather complex molecule. And the DNA is very similar ( in fact, shows a nested heirarchy, but thats another topic all together).

Do you agree that this genetic code is where information about the organism is stored, and do you agree that it is at least in theory changeable in ways where something similar to both an ape and a human could gradually change genetically into either, through random mutations in the code guided by natural selection?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

If the latter is true, let it come naturally from the data without forcing an interpretation on the facts

Well, that's what has been done. And not only that, but common descent has proved a useful, applied science. I know you are probably going to ignore that rather pertinent point (as it seems every creationist here does), but ignoring it won't make it go away.

 

[corvus_corax]

Wrong --- qv the Scope's Monkey Trial of 1925.

Ah yes, the hypocrisy of another Creationist (in this case, Judge Raulston)
You have to remember, AV, that Judge Raulston was the one that accepted biblical statements (and so-called "evidence") from the prosecution.
You also have to remember, AV that Raulston rejected "all defense testimony of the Bible" and stated that such so-called evidence (from the Defense only) should not be presented to the jury.
Typical Creationist hypocrisy in action.
Typical Creationist lying in action.
Typical Creationist obfuscation (something you yourself are guilty of) in action.


And, you have to remember (if you've actually read about the Scopes trial, instead of just doing a Google to back up your statements) that the Defense asked for a guilty plea. Why?
Why AV?
Why did the defense ask for that?
And what was the end result?
You should know those answers, seeing as how you are so well versed in the Scopes Trial.
And you should also know why the Jury wanted to state "not guilty".
Of course, they turned over a guilty verdict.
So you, seeing as how you supposedly base your beliefs on "evidence" should be able to tell me not only what the jury pled, but why they did so, and their exact words.

In the end, the "biblical evidence" was accepted by the Judge as long as it was presented from the Prosecuting side. He REJECTED the Defense when it came to defense testimony in regard to the Bible, and stated that the Defense testimony regarding the Bible should not be presented to the jury.
Typical, fully expected Creationist garbage.


Creationists have not changed since the Scopes Trial.

 

[Tiberius]

It is said by conservative Christians that we came from two humans and just two humans, Adam and Eve, and that it is inpossibal for humans and all living things to change over time. So how is it possibal that we have different skin,eye and hair color? If all of the human race came from the same two humans and evolution is some kind of lie we would all be one skin color. Yet we have White, Black, Asian, Indi, Hispanic, Native American, Arab,ect. If we all came from the same two people with out evolution we all be White or all Black or all Asian. It is only poissibal with Evolution. So the Creationist must belive in some form of evolution for this to happen. Unless they belive a White coupe can have a Asian kid or black couple can some how have a Hispanic kid. If that was ture how come same race couples in this day and age cant have children of a different race?

Changing of skin colour isn't evolution.

 

[Nathan45]

Changing of skin colour isn't evolution.

Yes it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_color

Dark skin is an adaptive advantage in sunny places like Africa because it protects against sunburn and skin cancer, while Lighter skin can generate vitamin D from sunlight.

Dark skin protects against those skin cancers that are caused by mutations in skin cells induced by ultraviolet light.[citation needed] Light-skinned persons have about a tenfold greater risk of dying from skin cancer under equal sun conditions. Furthermore, dark skin prevents UV-A radiation from destroying the essential B vitamin folate. Folate is needed for the synthesis of DNA in dividing cells and too low levels of folate in pregnant women are associated with birth defects.
While dark skin protects vitamin B, it can lead to a vitamin D deficiency. The advantage of light skin is that it does not block sunlight as effectively, leading to increased production of vitamin D3, necessary for calcium absorption and bone growth. The lighter skin of women may result from the higher calcium needs of women during pregnancy and lactation.

 

[Tiberius]

However, it is not macro evolution. And if it is evolution, then it would imply that one day caucasians will one day be a different species to Africans, who will be a different species to Asians.

Differing skin colour isn't really a change of species anymore than a German Shepherd is a different species to a Border Collie.

 

[consol]

However, it is not macro evolution. And if it is evolution, then it would imply that one day caucasians will one day be a different species to Africans, who will be a different species to Asians.

Differing skin colour isn't really a change of species anymore than a German Shepherd is a different species to a Border Collie.

Given enough time and isolation, and they would, we all know that to be true,
you don't honestly think a God made a duck billed platypus do you?

Although, that's why they coined the phrase, 'God works in mysterious ways'.
to explain things like that.

 

[consol]

Ah yes, the hypocrisy of another Creationist (in this case, Judge Raulston)
You have to remember, AV, that Judge Raulston was the one that accepted biblical statements (and so-called "evidence") from the prosecution.
You also have to remember, AV that Raulston rejected "all defense testimony of the Bible" and stated that such so-called evidence (from the Defense only) should not be presented to the jury.
Typical Creationist hypocrisy in action.
Typical Creationist lying in action.
Typical Creationist obfuscation (something you yourself are guilty of) in action.


And, you have to remember (if you've actually read about the Scopes trial, instead of just doing a Google to back up your statements) that the Defense asked for a guilty plea. Why?
Why AV?
Why did the defense ask for that?
And what was the end result?
You should know those answers, seeing as how you are so well versed in the Scopes Trial.
And you should also know why the Jury wanted to state "not guilty".
Of course, they turned over a guilty verdict.
So you, seeing as how you supposedly base your beliefs on "evidence" should be able to tell me not only what the jury pled, but why they did so, and their exact words.

In the end, the "biblical evidence" was accepted by the Judge as long as it was presented from the Prosecuting side. He REJECTED the Defense when it came to defense testimony in regard to the Bible, and stated that the Defense testimony regarding the Bible should not be presented to the jury.
Typical, fully expected Creationist garbage.


Creationists have not changed since the Scopes Trial.

Only in America.

 

[Tiberius]

Given enough time and isolation, and they would, we all know that to be true,
you don't honestly think a God made a duck billed platypus do you?

Although, that's why they coined the phrase, 'God works in mysterious ways'.
to explain things like that.

Look at my faith icon. I'm an atheist, I don't believe God created anything.

I just don't see humans developing into several different species based on their skin colour. Africans and Europeans are the same species, just as poodles and corgies are.

 

[DrkSdBls]

CORRECTION- the C&E forum is a Scientific Discussion Forum.

The fact that the Creationists refuse to discuss actual science does not change the fact that this (i.e. the C&E forum) is not a religious forum

Don't waste your time. We've been over this with him once before and he still hasn't learnt the difference.

To consol, the simple fact that we discuss the Bible at times makes us all Ignorant and Religious by association.

 

[DrkSdBls]

Look at my faith icon. I'm an atheist, I don't believe God created anything.

I just don't see humans developing into several different species based on their skin colour. Africans and Europeans are the same species, just as poodles and corgies are.

Not on Skin Color alone, of course.

But, it's entirely possible that Skin Color could lead to a Adaptation that'll increase the likelyhood of one group to survive over another.

Being Immune to Skin Cancer, for example, gives one group a significant advantage to that one group. If our Environment ever shifts in a way that Skin Cancer becomes an epidemic, then Natural Selection will single out that one Group to survive.

Something like Skin Color won't lead to a new species but it would give a current species the means to move ahead.