What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[Subduction Zone]

How? Can that be observed in a laboratory?

Those can be observed several ways. By analyzing the DNA of living animals. By studying variations in the DNA between species and testing models.

A lot of science is done outside of the laboratory. The mainstay of the scientific method is forming models that describe observations and testing them.

 

[Quietus]

You have changed the topic quite a bit. No one is trying to understand God. What we are trying to understand is the world that we live in. Now certain versions of God can be refuted if one assumes that God is honest.

I was initially responding to an entirely different post where the OP claimed Eve was the hero. You responded to that response, and so on and so forth. I was merely making a continuation of that digression.

And please, no conspiracy theories or false claims allowed. I did not use a gotcha argument. I used a basic well known fact. If you start to claim that everyone that does not agree with your interpretation of the Bible is not a Christian then you are attempting to change Christianity from a major worldwide religion to a minor cult. Like it or not Jesuits are Christians even if they are not your sort of Christians.

Just because you happen to be ignorant of certain topics, doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Christianity may be a major worldwide religion, but that doesn’t preclude it from infiltration. It has nothing to do with my personal interpretation. If someone is engaged in an anti-Christian practice, and are loyal to anti-Christian organizations, then they by definition, they are not true Christians, but are using the title of Christian in a false manner. That’s just common sense.

And I have studied the geology myself. It has gone far past what was first discovered in the early 1800's. Noah's Ark has been so thoroughly refuted that one has to be ignorant of all of the sciences to believe it or very dishonest.

I will make you an offer. You give me your model of the Flood story. How the water got here, where it went to. How deep it was etc. and I will explain what that model implies and why it is wrong.

No thanks. It doesn’t look like anyone in the past 60 pages has gotten anywhere, so why should I input my two cents, which will likely mirror what others have already said, just for you to repeat your own responses?

 

[Quietus]

It appears that you do not know the sources, nor the backgrounds of the geologists, or their non-participation in organisations other than church and college. Nor have you researched the geology yourself. Were you aware of any of these things you would not be making ill-informed posts.

Give me the source.

 

[Paul James]

By taking populations of organisms, watching them reproduce and studying the outcomes.

We did that many moons ago in our science class at school where we grew bacteria in a plexidish. But this was reproduction of bacteria to show multiplying of bacteria, not any change in the bacteria to some other organism. Therefore, the bacteria did not, in itself, evolve at all.

 

[pitabread]

We did that many moons ago in our science class at school where we grew bacteria in a plexidish. But this was reproduction of bacteria to show multiplying of bacteria, not any change in the bacteria to some other organism. Therefore, the bacteria did not, in itself, evolve at all.

Sure they did. Evolution is just the genetic changes in populations over time. Populations of organisms continually evolve.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was initially responding to an entirely different post where the OP claimed Eve was the hero. You responded to that response, and so on and so forth. I was merely making a continuation of that digression.

The comment was still valid.

Just because you happen to be ignorant of certain topics, doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Christianity may be a major worldwide religion, but that doesn’t preclude it from infiltration. It has nothing to do with my personal interpretation. If someone is engaged in an anti-Christian practice, and are loyal to anti-Christian organizations, then they by definition, they are not true Christians, but are using the title of Christian in a false manner. That’s just common sense.

What are you talking about here? I am not ignorant of the Jesuits. I know the wild rumors that circulate at times. And I am sure that there are some of your beliefs that other Christians consider to be an "anti-Christian practice". In this case Jesus was wise when he said "judge not lest ye be judged". The Catholics do appear to be very Christian even if one does not like the excessive decoration that they have gotten into. Though some may call those idol many literalists have made the same error by turning the Bible into an idol.

No thanks. It doesn’t look like anyone in the past 60 pages has gotten anywhere, so why should I input my two cents, which will likely mirror what others have already said, just for you to repeat your own responses?

Wait, you have no curiosity as to why your beliefs are demonstrably wrong? That makes any denial of the sciences by you of no value when one actively refuses to learn. It is similar to sites like Answers in Genesis where they make themselves worthless for scientific debate by forcing their workers to swear to not follow the scientific method.

My offer was quite genuine. If I linked you to a Christian source that explains why there was no flood would you read it?

 

[Paul James]

Sure they did. Evolution is just the genetic changes in populations over time. Populations of organisms continually evolve.

Reproduction and evolution are two totally different processes. What I am questioning is the theory that one organism can change over time into another, such as depicted in an artist's impression of a four legged land animal changing into a blue whale, or of a fish coming out of the water and changing into some type of land animal. One person on a thread tried to give the example of a bacteria changing into an amoeba through a symbiotic relationship, but in reality, the bacteria merely went and lived inside the amoeba and did not change itself or the amoeba. I think that is the closest that anyone has been able to come to any change of organism demonstrated in a laboratory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Reproduction and evolution are two totally different processes. What I am questioning is the theory that one organism can change over time into another, such as depicted in an artist's impression of a four legged land animal changing into a blue whale, or of a fish coming out of the water and changing into some type of land animal. One person on a thread tried to give the example of a bacteria changing into an amoeba through a symbiotic relationship, but in reality, the bacteria merely went and lived inside the amoeba and did not change itself or the amoeba. I think that is the closest that anyone has been able to come to any change of organism demonstrated in a laboratory.

That is rather poorly worded because it is not a matter of species "changing into another". Change of kind is a creationist strawman. What happens is that species develop new traits and sometimes lose old ones. For example our stirrup bone is no longer part of our jaw. The evolution of the inner ear is well tracked in the fossil record. It led to intense debates upon when "mammals" first appeared. Many creationists imagine species crossing some hard lines as they change, but that is not the case. It is more like a slow motion morph of faces as you may have seen in certain videos.

The sort of changes that you demand to see would ironically refute the theory of evolution. It took millions of years for man to go from the ape ancestor that we shared with chimps (please note that was not a modern ape) to us chimps and bonobos. We can show quite a few of the intermediate steps, but of course not all of them.

My suggestion if you want to learn is to never listen to creationist sites. There is not one of them that has not been caught lying. They cannot claim error since they have people that do know better working for them. I could link you to a 40 some part series of videos. All fairly short, about 10 minutes long, that give you an abbreviated education on what happened from single celled life to us. I know that sounds like a lot, but this is a very complex problem. It would take years to get a good education about the processes.

 

[Ophiolite]

Give me the source.

You continue to reveal your ignorance of the topic. If you were at all familiar with the development of geological thought following the enlightenment and into the 19th century, up to and beyond the publication of On the Origin of Species, then you would be aware that there are multiple sources.
But since you seem to think this is a game I'll play for a while. Give me a source that supports your assertion - a reliable one please - and I'll give you three supporting mine.

 

[Quietus]

You continue to reveal your ignorance of the topic. If you were at all familiar with the development of geological thought following the enlightenment and into the 19th century, up to and beyond the publication of On the Origin of Species, then you would be aware that there are multiple sources.
But since you seem to think this is a game I'll play for a while. Give me a source that supports your assertion - a reliable one please - and I'll give you three supporting mine.

You take yourself entirely too seriously.

 

[pitabread]

Reproduction and evolution are two totally different processes.

Biological evolution describes the process by which populations of organisms change over time. Reproduction is part of that process.

What I am questioning is the theory that one organism can change over time into another, such as depicted in an artist's impression of a four legged land animal changing into a blue whale, or of a fish coming out of the water and changing into some type of land animal.

Keep in mind, the starting organisms isn't changing itself into another organism. Rather, it's an accumulation of changes over successive generations in a population. It's the population that changes, not the individual organism.

One person on a thread tried to give the example of a bacteria changing into an amoeba through a symbiotic relationship, but in reality, the bacteria merely went and lived inside the amoeba and did not change itself or the amoeba. I think that is the closest that anyone has been able to come to any change of organism demonstrated in a laboratory.

It seems like your conceptualization of evolution involves an individual organism changing into something else. That's not how evolution works.

Biological evolution is about populations changing over time.

 

[Ophiolite]

You take yourself entirely too seriously.

I take the topic and accuracy in discussion of the topic seriously. I remain hopeful that you will do the same. My offer stands open until death or dementia intervene.

 

[Paul James]

Biological evolution describes the process by which populations of organisms change over time. Reproduction is part of that process.



Keep in mind, the starting organisms isn't changing itself into another organism. Rather, it's an accumulation of changes over successive generations in a population. It's the population that changes, not the individual organism.



It seems like your conceptualization of evolution involves an individual organism changing into something else. That's not how evolution works.

Biological evolution is about populations changing over time.

I have seen in other posts that evolution is said to be just a fairy tale trying to explain what might have happened, and I have not seen any posts giving proof that it is otherwise.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have seen in other posts that evolution is said to be just a fairy tale trying to explain what might have happened, and I have not seen any posts giving proof that it is otherwise.

The problem is that creationists tend to be very illiterate when it comes to the sciences so they cannot recognize "proof" when it is presented to them. I do constantly offer to go over the basics of science so that they can begin to understand but it appears that a fear of learning is perceived as a threat by creationists and they always run away from a more than reasonable offer.

People that ridicule evolution always tend to be science deniers which makes their use of equipment that depends heavily on the sciences incredibly hypocritical.

 

[pitabread]

I have seen in other posts that evolution is said to be just a fairy tale trying to explain what might have happened, and I have not seen any posts giving proof that it is otherwise.

If you want to learn what the Theory of Evolution really says, I have an entire thread dedicated to free University courses on the subject. They go into the mechanisms of evolution and the evidence that supports it.

The information is freely available for anyone who wants it: Educational resources for learning about biology and evolution

 

[pitabread]

The problem is that creationists tend to be very illiterate when it comes to the sciences so they cannot recognize "proof" when it is presented to them.

The demand for proof is never sincere. I don't think a creationist has yet taken me up on the course material I've offered in the thread I made.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The demand for proof is never sincere. I don't think a creationist has yet taken me up on the course material I've offered in the thread I made.

If they won't even take a few minutes to find out what is and what is not evidence it is highly doubtful if they would take you up on your offer. I have yet to meet a creationist that wants to learn, they only want excuses to believe. I think that those that wanted to learn have done already done so long before they come here.

 

[Quietus]

I take the topic and accuracy in discussion of the topic seriously. I remain hopeful that you will do the same. My offer stands open until death or dementia intervene.

Nothing like a good exercise in futility, I guess.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nothing like a good exercise in futility, I guess.

You could always try to learn. If Christians are supposed to be honest it would be the Christian thing to do.

 

[Paul James]

Nothing like a good exercise in futility, I guess.

Like carrying on the discussion in this thread.