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.
Only because Creationists like playing word games, such as making up things like macro-evolution.Adaptation is not the same as evolving from an ape.
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?
Then I suppose this is an argument of semantics.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?
But they are changed through natural selection, right? Even though you didn't directly answer, You agree to that much?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?
... 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?"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
If the latter is true, let it come naturally from the data without forcing an interpretation on the facts
Ah yes, the hypocrisy of another Creationist (in this case, Judge Raulston)Wrong --- qv the Scope's Monkey Trial of 1925.
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?
Yes it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_colorChanging of skin colour isn't evolution.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?