Why not both?

[bhsmte]

QV please:

Explain please, how the bible supports the age of the earth.

 

[SLP]

I've never, in nine years, pretended macroevolution doesn't exist.

In fact, I've stated many times it does -- but only on paper.

A difference without distinction.

Your God exists but only on paper.

 

[AV1611VET]

Explain please, how the bible supports the age of the earth.

It doesn't.

Thus I rely on what scientists conclude.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

A difference without distinction.

Your God exists but only on paper.

Paper take a hike!

 

[bhsmte]

It doesn't.

Thus I rely on what scientists conclude.

But why go against your standards, to accept what science says?

 

[AV1611VET]

But why go against your standards, to accept what science says?

Maybe you need to read my standards a little more closely, eh?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

 

[Loudmouth]

Maybe you need to read my standards a little more closely, eh?

You don't have to read that closely to understand that you have a double standard.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Do you think that a species trying to adapt to an ever changing environment, over time would become almost an entirely different species? That is, by being forced by the environment to continue to adapt, it eventually adapts to such a drastically different environment, that it is basically a wholly different animal than what we started with.

I don't think evolution is even possible given the 'givens' needed to do so.

You acknowledged adaptation. Where do you draw the line with it?

Dog varieties (are forced to) mutate in accordance with how man wants them to appear and perform. However, they are still dogs.

If man can turn a fairly good design into a monstrosity like a bulldog in just a few hundred years, we can surely develop a new species starting with a dog or other animal, and prove the theory.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't think evolution is even possible given the 'givens' needed to do so.

Can you show us a single difference between the human and chimp genomes that evolution could not produce?

Dog varieties (are forced to) mutate in accordance with how man wants them to appear and perform. However, they are still dogs.

Humans are still primates. Chimps are still primates. Our common ancestor was a primate.

Are you saying that humans and chimps evolving from a common primate ancestor is not evolution because all the species are still primates?

If man can turn a fairly good design into a monstrosity like a bulldog in just a few hundred years, we can surely develop a new species starting with a dog or other animal, and prove the theory.

We already have the proof.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Also, the new species would still be a dog because you never stop being what your ancestors were.

 

[bhsmte]

Maybe you need to read my standards a little more closely, eh?

I reckon so.

 

[Loudmouth]

I used this picture in another thread, but it should work here just fine. What I would like to see is a creationist explain to me how evolution could not produce the differences seen between the two DNA sequences in the attached picture. It is a comparison of a portion of the human and chimp genomes.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Humans are still primates. Chimps are still primates. Our common ancestor was a primate.

Similarity of design indicates a common designer, not a common ancestor.

The more dazzling and complex the minutia the more I'm convinced of creation. Also the more complex and interdependent organisms are the less likely they produced themselves.

The fossil record doesn't show the wreckage of unfit, half-finished organisms. It shows perfectly designed critters that died off because of environmental cataclysms. It also shows that some new species appeared rather suddenly.

 

[Loudmouth]

Similarity of design indicates a common designer, not a common ancestor.

A nested hierarchy demonstrates common ancestry, not common design.

The more dazzling and complex the minutia the more I'm convinced of creation. Also the more complex and interdependent organisms are the less likely they produced themselves.

Why do those things make you convinced of creation?

The fossil record doesn't show the wreckage of unfit, half-finished organisms. It shows perfectly designed critters that died off because of environmental cataclysms. It also shows that some new species appeared rather suddenly.

Evolution doesn't need to use unfit, half-finished organisms. Also, you have never shown that a single species is perfectly designed. Was Tiktaalik, with it's transitional features between fish and tetrapods, perfectly designed? If so, what makes Tiktaalik perfectly designed? If Tiktaalik isn't transitional, then what features would a real transitional have that Tiktaalik does not?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Evolution doesn't need to use unfit, half-finished organisms. Also, you have never shown that a single species is perfectly designed. Was Tiktaalik, with it's transitional features between fish and tetrapods, perfectly designed? If so, what makes Tiktaalik perfectly designed? If Tiktaalik isn't transitional, then what features would a real transitional have that Tiktaalik does not?

To prove your point you have to demonstrate that Tiktaalik's design was unsuitable for survival in it's environment. The platypus is pretty goofy looking too, but well suited for survival in it's environment.

 

[Papias]

AV wrote:

Theistic evolutionists believe in what is called "guided evolution" -- (I think).

To support AV's statement - yes, though some TEs are deists, I consider that a weak (and, frankly, heretical) position.

A common TE position is exactly what AV is referring to - that God guided evolution. Or, perhaps more clearly, that God is involved and active in all so called "natural" laws. As per Heb 1:3 and John 5:17.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[crjmurray]

AV wrote:




To support AV's statement - yes, though some TEs are deists, I consider that a weak (and, frankly, heretical) position.

A common TE position is exactly what AV is referring to - that God guided evolution. Or, perhaps more clearly, that God is involved and active in all so called "natural" laws. As per Heb 1:3 and John 5:17.

In Christ-

Papias

Yeah, thanks.

 

[Papias]

OWG posted:

To prove your point you have to demonstrate that Tiktaalik's design was unsuitable for survival in it's environment.

False. Simply false. To prove his point he only needed to show that Tiktaalik's "design" was sub-optimal, since a perfect designer would give a perfect design.

Instead, we see time and again in the animal kingdom, idiotic designs that show the designer to be an incompetent bungler. The neck nerve, the lack of gills in whales, the eggs of a sea turtle, and so much more make it clear that as soon as "design" is considered, one can either accept evolution or one is calling God an idiot, which is a sure ticket to hell according to Mt 12:32.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Papias]

CJ, I consider it heretical for a Chrisitan. Since you don't claim to be a Christian, I'd guess that you don't mind being a heretic from a Christian perspective, right?

In love-

Papias

 

[crjmurray]

CJ, I consider it heretical for a Chrisitan. Since you don't claim to be a Christian, I'd guess that you don't mind being a heretic from a Christian perspective, right?

In love-

Papias

Why would I?