Who yokes with who?

[Gwenyfur]

This is a flat-out falsehood. Why do you insist on repeating this?

Really...the flies being mutated in the lab are *still* flies...
the bacteria is jsut a mutated form of the *same* bacteria...
The frost reistant soy bean plants are *still* ..... soy bean plants

it's not a 4 winged fly from a fish...it's a mutated fly from a ..... fly
it's not a bacteria from a turtle...it's a bacteria mutated into a .... bacteria
it's not a soybean from a turnip....it's a soybean genetically altered into a ....soybean plant...
WOW!!!!

 

[Lilandra]

and showing in a derisive manner that you don't understand what evolution actually is.

Evolution doesn't say that a species turned into a different species instantly.

Evolution doesn't say that am insect will turn into a fish.

How can you discuss evolution without knowing that?

Really...the flies being mutated in the lab are *still* flies...
the bacteria is jsut a mutated form of the *same* bacteria...
The frost reistant soy bean plants are *still* ..... soy bean plants

it's not a 4 winged fly from a fish...it's a mutated fly from a ..... fly
it's not a bacteria from a turtle...it's a bacteria mutated into a .... bacteria
it's not a soybean from a turnip....it's a soybean genetically altered into a ....soybean plant...
WOW!!!!

 

[vossler]

YECs criticize TEs for not evangelizing to nonbelieving posters. One thing they don't understand is that alot of times YECers make Christianity look preposterous to intelligent nonbelievers.

The thing is we're not called to make things look intelligent to the nonbeliever, all we're called to do is preach the Word. It's the Holy Spirit's job to convict a person and to convert the human soul.

A number of times, I have witnessed them saying that either the world is less than 10,000 years old like they think Genesis says it is, or throw the Bible out. A nonbeliever will be like,"Sure, no problem!" Then the problem gets compounded by some the YECs gleefully telling nonbelievers they are going to Hell. It is gruesome.

Why do you think nonbelievers believe Genesis says the world is less than 10,000 years old? Because that's what is says!

The effect is that Christianity and Christians look irrational and mean-spirited, entrenching nonbelievers and deconverting struggling Christians.

I know that alot of nonbelievers were raised Christian or are more familiar with the Bible than alot of Christians. All I can do is try to be rational myself so I don't make Christianity look nutty. I don't have to hammer them. I've discussed Christianity with a number of them this way.

Yes Christians look irrational, the Bible says they will, but certainly not mean-spirited.

You just have to remember that they put their pants on one leg at a time just like we do. They aren't any more evil or less than people you would see in churches every Sunday.

To a large extent that is true, sad but true. Yet, there should be a tremendous difference.

 

[Gwenyfur]

and showing in a derisive manner that you don't understand what evolution actually is.

Evolution doesn't say that a species turned into a different species instantly.

Evolution doesn't say that am insect will turn into a fish.

How can you discuss evolution without knowing that?

Funny....
that's exactly what wiki describes...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

 

[Dracil]

Funny....
Because I don't see it. Care to quote the section where it states that Evolution says that a species turns into a different species instantly or that Evolution says that an insect will turn into a fish.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Funny....
that's exactly what wiki describes...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

I don't see the word "instantly" in the Wikipedia article.

I also don't see the phrases "fly from a fish," "bacteria from a turtle," or "soybean from a turnip."

So I guess it's not "exactly" what wikipedia describes after all... so, not so funny after all, is it?

 

[Gwenyfur]

there we go twisting words...

surely you can understand a bloody concept! and for once stay on subject and not sarcastically twist every bloody line you read to yoru own ends!

The concept of a species giving offspring that are of a difference species *IS* included in that wiki definition of evolution...

So are you really going to sit there and type another lie about your theory's definition?

 

[The Lady Kate]

there we go twisting words...

surely you can understand a bloody concept! and for once stay on subject and not sarcastically twist every bloody line you read to yoru own ends!

These were your words derisive though they may be... you said that what lily said wasn't evolution, was exactly what wikipedia described as being it.

And yet, lily mentioned that evolution does not say that a species will instantly transform. You claimed that wikipedia said it did.

Can you not admit to a simple error?

The concept of a species giving offspring that are of a difference species *IS* included in that wiki definition of evolution...

Show me... because what I see is this:

"Its action over large stretches of time explains the origin of new species and ultimately the vast diversity of the biological world. Contemporary species are related to each other through common descent, products of evolution and speciation over billions of years"

How anyone could honestly get one species' offspring being a different species is quite puzzling... especially given the following:

"One of Darwin's key insights was to view species statistically – that is, a "species" is not a homogeneous and immutable thing; rather, it consists of a mass of individuals that vary in form from one another and from their offspring. This view was substantiated with the development of Mendelian genetics, which distinguishes different species in terms of differences in the frequencies of particular genes."

given that, anyone could see that while one species does not instantly give birth to a new one, one generation (Call it A)could give birth to a new one that was ever so slightly different (Generation B)... which would then give birth to Generation C, which had but a few minor differences, and so on.

Now, this process is perfectly normal... there's a lot of genetic variation and difference within any given species. But over time, say, by the time you get to Generation Triple-W, those difference would have accumulated enough to be considered a different species... from Generation A.

Regardless of whether or not one agrees with this, it seems hard to imagine that one who actually claims to know something about evolution couldn't understand this part of the mechanism.

So are you really going to sit there and type another lie about your theory's definition?

Substantiate or retract this claim... it would be the Christian thing to do.

In any case, I will give you the benefit of the doubt before introducing you to my ignore list: Paste the passage which explicitly says that the offspring of one species will be a different species.

 

[Dracil]

And I challenge you to quote the section.

We understand the concept fine. But I do not think it means what you think it means.

And it will be easier for us to explain it to you if you'd actually point it out.

Currently, what we have here is something like a Muslim telling Christians that they do not understand the Trinity, and pointing to some wiki article on Christianity without really understanding what it means. And then getting bloody defensive about it when told he/she's misunderstood it.

 

[Gwenyfur]

These were your words derisive though they may be... you said that what lily said wasn't evolution, was exactly what wikipedia described as being it.

And yet, lily mentioned that evolution does not say that a species will instantly transform. You claimed that wikipedia said it did.

Can you not admit to a simple error?



Show me... because what I see is this:

"Its action over large stretches of time explains the origin of new species and ultimately the vast diversity of the biological world. Contemporary species are related to each other through common descent, products of evolution and speciation over billions of years"

How anyone could honestly get one species' offspring being a different species is quite puzzling... especially given the following:

"One of Darwin's key insights was to view species statistically – that is, a "species" is not a homogeneous and immutable thing; rather, it consists of a mass of individuals that vary in form from one another and from their offspring. This view was substantiated with the development of Mendelian genetics, which distinguishes different species in terms of differences in the frequencies of particular genes."

given that, anyone could see that while one species does not instantly give birth to a new one, one generation (Call it A)could give birth to a new one that was ever so slightly different (Generation B)... which would then give birth to Generation C, which had but a few minor differences, and so on.

Now, this process is perfectly normal... there's a lot of genetic variation and difference within any given species. But over time, say, by the time you get to Generation Triple-W, those difference would have accumulated enough to be considered a different species... from Generation A.

Regardless of whether or not one agrees with this, it seems hard to imagine that one who actually claims to know something about evolution couldn't understand this part of the mechanism.



Substantiate or retract this claim... it would be the Christian thing to do.

In any case, I will give you the benefit of the doubt before introducing you to my ignore list: Paste the passage which explicitly says that the offspring of one species will be a different species.

I would actually prefer your ignore list...it would be one less TE twisting everything I say, drizzling it with sarcasm, acerbidity and the atheistic meanderings of "scientists" while ignoring the glory and magnificence of the true Creator - The Living G-d...

 

[The Lady Kate]

I would actually prefer your ignore list...it would be one less TE twisting everything I say, drizzling it with sarcasm, acerbidity and the atheistic meanderings of "scientists" while ignoring the glory and magnificence of the true Creator - The Living G-d...

In other words, you made a claim, you refuse to support it, and in the same breath, you accuse others of lying.

The ignore list it is, then.

Edited to add: Someone please let me know if she ever substantiates her original claim...

 

[Gwenyfur]

In other words, you made a claim, you refuse to support it, and in the same breath, you accuse others of lying.

The ignore list it is, then.

Claim made
claim twisted
claim supported
claim refuted
claim wahtever...thanks you made my night!

 

[KerrMetric]

In other words, you made a claim, you refuse to support it, and in the same breath, you accuse others of lying.

The ignore list it is, then.

Edited to add: Someone please let me know if she ever substantiates her original claim...

I'm 44 years old not 14, I'll have passed on I believe.

 

[Dracil]

Well, in that case, nothing to see here. Move along now.

BTW, is it something in the air? Seems like some people have become really defensive on the forums nowadays. Just today, I told someone to just put me on their ignore list in a completely different section of the forums.

 

[Dannager]

there we go twisting words...

surely you can understand a bloody concept! and for once stay on subject and not sarcastically twist every bloody line you read to yoru own ends!

The concept of a species giving offspring that are of a difference species *IS* included in that wiki definition of evolution...

So are you really going to sit there and type another lie about your theory's definition?

Gwenyfur, your hostility is undue. If you feel that the theory of evolution states that, please quote for us the passage where it does so from that Wikipedia article. A lot of us have looked that page over dozens of times, and we haven't seen that passage. I did, however, see this:

One of Darwin's key insights was to view species statistically – that is, a "species" is not a homogeneous and immutable thing; rather, it consists of a mass of individuals that vary in form from one another and from their offspring. This view was substantiated with the development of Mendelian genetics, which distinguishes different species in terms of differences in the frequencies of particular genes.

So let's have your stab at it.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Gwenyfur, your hostility is undue. If you feel that the theory of evolution states that, please quote for us the passage where it does so from that Wikipedia article. A lot of us have looked that page over dozens of times, and we haven't seen that passage. I did, however, see this:

So let's have your stab at it.

One of Darwin's key insights was to view species statistically – that is, a "species" is not a homogeneous and immutable thing; rather, it consists of a mass of individuals that vary in form from one another and from their offspring. This view was substantiated with the development of Mendelian genetics, which distinguishes different species in terms of differences in the frequencies of particular genes.

emphasis mine

the bolded states pretty much the point I've been making...
species don't produce different species...as that bolded area claims...

soybean is still soybean
fly is still fly
bacteria still bacteria

I'm not hostile with you because you are polite...not demeaning or deliberately twisting of my words..

 

[Willtor]

Gwenyfur, please don't think I'm being hostile in this post. I really don't mean to be. It would be so much easier to speak face to face to see that I'm being sincere. So take my post in that light.

You're saying that you disagree with certain things. We are saying that we also disagree with those things. We are also saying that scientists disagree with those things. If it's the word, "evolution," that's bothering you, then I will endeavor not to use it when speaking with you. But please let us talk about what it is we do think.

 

[Dannager]

emphasis mine

the bolded states pretty much the point I've been making...
species don't produce different species...as that bolded area claims...

soybean is still soybean
fly is still fly
bacteria still bacteria

I'm not hostile with you because you are polite...not demeaning or deliberately twisting of my words..

But immediately following that the article states:

"Microevolution" and "macroevolution" both refer fundamentally to the same thing, changes in gene frequencies. The difference between them is primarily one of scale; that is, qualitative differences between species is the result of quantitative differences in gene frequencies. Commonly, macroevolution is defined as microevolution over a longer timescale. Some scientists, such as Stephen Jay Gould, use the term macroevolution to instead describe evolutionary processes that occur at the level of species or above.
Evidence of the mechanisms for the larger scales of time comes from evidence of the mechanisms for the smaller scales of time. The differences between macroevolution and microevolution are a result of this change of scale and do not necessitate mechanisms of change other than those already found in microevolution.

Emphasis mine.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Wiltor

Thanks for the effort it's appreciated

You are right we do disagree on several points. I believe G-d's word is faithful and true as He promised. I believe the word is true...every printed page. I believe the Genesis account as literal, I believe the flood account as literal. and I believe that the L-rd, had He used evolution, would not have waited until the 17th century to reveal that fact to mankind

I understand the theory of evolution to a certain degree...I don't claim to be a scientist, but I do claim to be able to read and understand documents and claims made by scientists.

I rarely agree with them, especially when the word of G-d is a stronger measure than the knowledge and wisdom of man

That is where I'm at...that is where I will stay. To say that G-d created death before sin entered the world is against His word, when several times in scripture He states that Death entered the world through Adam. How many generations of animals died before Adam eventually "evolved"? Doesn't add up..

The Bible stated the earth was round long before Christopher Columbus proved it
The Bible stated the "life was in the blood" long before people stopped leeching
The Bible stated not to touch dead people/animals unless you bathed thoroughly afterwards...long before science discovered the bacteria that kills...
The list goes on and on...so why would I believe the "wisdom of men" in this century...when it's been proven so so so wrong in all the previous millenia?

I wouldn't...G-d remains the same, yesterday, today and forever

 

[Gwenyfur]

But immediately following that the article states:

Emphasis mine.

"Microevolution" and "macroevolution" both refer fundamentally to the same thing, changes in gene frequencies. The difference between them is primarily one of scale; that is, qualitative differences between species is the result of quantitative differences in gene frequencies. Commonly, macroevolution is defined as microevolution over a longer timescale. Some scientists, such as Stephen Jay Gould, use the term macroevolution to instead describe evolutionary processes that occur at the level of species or above.
Evidence of the mechanisms for the larger scales of time comes from evidence of the mechanisms for the smaller scales of time. The differences between macroevolution and microevolution are a result of this change of scale and do not necessitate mechanisms of change other than those already found in microevolution.

Okay...amazing how it seems contradictory at first...
I agree that small changes within a species occur, but *not* to the point of creating a different species entirely...

alaska, minnesota, florida rabbits....they're all still rabbits... despite their genetic differences, they are still the same *species*