Evolutionism [Archive] - Christian Guitar Forum

JerryLove

11-27-2001, 11:30 AM

Abiogenesis....can someone fill me in real quick on what this is, or would that take forever? Litereally "Life's creation from non-life". IOW, the origin of the first living creature.

1)no proof for either old or young earth
2)statistically, they are impossible
3)if it is gradualism, it should have a continuing line of creatures, so fossilization should be equally rare for everything, then, PE explains the holes, but the odds are worse
4)not the eye, the wing, or the cell 1) Erosion, radiometric dating, geological record, erosion, impact counts, tectonic movement, fossil record, DNA record, recorded history, plants older than the "young Earth" theory, astrophysics (how / when the Earth and solar system formed), methods of aging the sun, light from more than 6000ly away (old universe), etc.
2) No, they are not.
3) No, it's not "equally rare", it's chaotic. As I mentioned, most everything is a transition, so they are everywhere. Wanna see a transition between a lizard and a bird? look at a therapod (say a compy).
4) I've shown you the eye repeatedly (and just yesterday, I showed you a reduced complexity one).

I don't know how you explain the fossilization of anything aside from a world-wide flood. A world wide flood would *not* have created the fossil record we see. *That* would be impossiable. Creatures that are fossilizes usually died in shallow or moving water, on stream beds, in shallow seas, or in mudslides. Some were buried by other debris or sunk in tar.

Pre-occurrence odds have been stated as probably 1/10^90 or less (most Christian estimates are something like 1/10^260, or 1/10^130 at best). In academia, this is considered "impossible." Sure, the same as the odds of a peson forming in a womb are (purely mathmatically) 1 in several billion. It happens a few hundred thousand times a day successfully. There are many problems with those odds I have addressed repeatedly. They range from not accounting for tendancies, to assuimng the results that did occur are the only successfull results.

However, we must offer "transitionals" to go between major steps--such as leading up to a whale, reptile, bird, etc. There are pre reptiles, and pre birds, and pre whales (blue-green algie fits all three). But very few animals ever fossilized, and very few of the fossils have been uncovered, and certain conditions are more likely to produce fossils than others. So if you want a transition between a t-rex and an allosaurus, you may not find one. If you want a transition between a fish and a dinosaur, try a reptile.

To my knowledge, the only proposed transitional fossil which has really stood the test of time is Archaeoptyrex. What's wrong with homo-erectus? What about living transitions? Is a long-nosed finch a transition from a short-nosed finch to a really long nosed finch?

They have doubt surrounding them. Of course! Most creatures are placed in the "evolution bush" with a degree of uncertainty (unless they are modern and researched, in which case we have lots of modern samples and can look at anatomy and DNA). You've got a book with no page numbers, torn into a million seperate pages; and you've only got a thousand of them. Now you are trying to put them in order. It's difficult and error prone. Don't confuse difficulty proper placing a bone froagment from 100,000,000 years ago with an uncertanty in evolution.

What about the eye or the reproductive system? Yep. Those are reasonable undersutood. You have modern examples of both ranging from effectively "none" to "fully modern".

Genesis says the earth was created in 7 days. And following back geneologies that puts it at ~5000 - 7000 years old (since the geneologies aren't always specific) Anyone want to explain "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days--and also afterward--when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them."? What are "daughters of men"? (this is pre-Noah).

Travis

11-27-2001, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by calebb
Some people argue that this is figurative: ie maybe God's 7 days were really 3.8 billion years. Well... Psalm 119:160a says 'The Word is true from the beginning'

And...? That doesn't mean they are always meant to be taken 100% literally.

Originally posted by calebb
Anyway, if that were the case, how do you explain there not being any bloodshed before Adam first sinned, which was after the creation. ie if there were 3.8 million years before man, were all the animals herbivores? hehe

Please quote the verse than says there was no bloodshed among animals before sin.
I basically think that the whole creation story, adam & eve and the first sin, cain and able, and all that was figuritive.

Originally posted by calebb
You must be careful picking and choosing which parts of the Bible you're going to believe and which you aren't!

That is not what we/I am doing!!!
How many times must I say this?
I am not disbelieving, I am just not taking it literally!
Please!! ENOUGH with that worn-out and totally false accusation!

ChrisHarbison

11-27-2001, 01:52 PM

The statement is, "If Adam and Eve were created with, it is possible that God could have created the earth with age." Why is this statement false?

I didn't say it was false, I said that's what I believed.

I believe that if God created Adam and Eve with signs of age, as well as all the other creatures that walked the earth, then I believe He would have stayed consistant and done the same with the earth. So that statement is very true.

JerryLove

11-27-2001, 02:02 PM

"I believe that if God created Adam and Eve with signs of age, as well as all the other creatures that walked the earth, then I believe He would have stayed consistant and done the same with the earth. So that statement is very true."

Firstly, this is not a proof of young Earth to a non-fundie. This is an apologetic for ignoring the evidence if you are a creationist.

Secondly, there is no support that Adam would have been made with skars, or healed bone fractures, or partial arterial clogging (signs of having been old), merely that he was fully formed. While you could dismiss formation rates of granite and the like under this belief (or you could dismis this belief under reason), you are still left with the signs of the passage of time (everything I mentioned originally).

ChrisHarbison

11-27-2001, 02:15 PM

Firstly, this is not a proof of young Earth to a non-fundie. This is an apologetic for ignoring the evidence if you are a creationist.

On the contrary, this simply shows that God is actually capable of making His creation fit with the very science He also created along side it. I'm not ignoring the evidence, I'm simply saying that science leans towards an old earth, and why shouldn't it, did God create Adam and Eve as babies? No. Did God create abunch of seeds and let the fruit tree grow naturally? No. Did God create abunch of baby animals and let them grow up first? No. God created them all mature. If he did this, why would He not do the same with the earth. And if God created an old earth less than 100,000 years ago, doesn't it make sense that science would show it was old? You're just trying to pick an arguement b/c you lack the faith it requires to believe what God says.

Secondly, there is no support that Adam would have been made with skars, or healed bone fractures, or partial arterial clogging (signs of having been old), merely that he was fully formed. While you could dismiss formation rates of granite and the like under this belief (or you could dismis this belief under reason), you are still left with the signs of the passage of time (everything I mentioned originally).

Well duh, Adam and Eve as well as the rest of Creation was created perfect so why would they have those things, but you ran tests on them, the test results would say they were in their 30's (or how ever "old" they were at the time of their creation).

JerryLove

11-27-2001, 02:53 PM

On the contrary, this simply shows that God is actually capable of making His creation fit with the very science He also created along side it. Right, you are creating an apologetic by where the evidence can be ignored as "misleading".

Did God create abunch of seeds and let the fruit tree grow naturally? No. Did God create abunch of baby animals and let them grow up first? No. Really? "and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground" (Gen 2:5). Sounds like the plants *were* created as seeds.

Well duh, Adam and Eve as well as the rest of Creation was created perfect so why would they have those things, but you ran tests on them, the test results would say they were in their 30's (or how ever "old" they were at the time of their creation). So why does the Earth have them? Why is there the results of mre than 6000 years of erosion? More than 6000 years of Carbon decay? More than 6000 years of tectonic movemnet? More than 6000 years of uranium crystal fracturing? More that 6000 years of object impacts? More than 6000 years of recorded history? More than 6000 years of gene drift? More than 6000 years of fossil record?

To metaphor Adam and the Earth, The Earth wasn't just made 30, it was made with skin damaged from the sun, and arthritas, and fingernailes several feet long. Signs of having aged, not just the appearence of age.

calebb

11-27-2001, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by pleasurespain

That is not what we/I am doing!!!
How many times must I say this?
I am not disbelieving, I am just not taking it literally!
Please!! ENOUGH with that worn-out and totally false accusation!

I would argue that not taking it literally is the same as disbelieving though. I'm not trying to falsly accuse, I'm trying to convey what I believe: That not taking the Bible literally is the same as disbelief.

I like what Ken Ham says:

You know, its true that I've found that most Christians--in most churches--wont accept the days of Creation as six, 24-hour periods of time. But you know what? Ive also found that the major reason most people don't agree with six literal days has nothing to do with what the Bible says, but everything to do with outside influences.

Now what do I mean by that? I have Christians often tell me that the Creation days can't be six literal days because scientists have proved the Earth is billions of years old. But scientists have not shown that the Earth is old. Evolutionary dating methods have all sorts of assumptions about the past, and theyre based on the fallible theories of men who weren't there. Why is it that we're so quick to take the words of men who don't know everything, who weren't there, and have them judge God's Word? We must understand that God knows everything, and Hes always been there.

If we take God at His Word, and get rid of those outside influences, we find there's no other way of taking Genesis but as literal history.

Then as the days of creation take place, God is very specific to say there was evening and there was morning - the (third) day, just in case there was doubt as to how long a day was...

When I have more time, I'll take some other scripture non-literally and see how they sound. By 'choosing what to believe' I simply meant we must be careful in choosing ourselves what God intended to be an analogy versus the truth.

because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe' (1 Thessalonians 2:1 3)

-Caleb

guitarman

11-27-2001, 07:58 PM

I would argue that not taking it literally is the same as disbelieving though. I'm not trying to falsly accuse, I'm trying to convey what I believe: That not taking the Bible literally is the same as disbelief.

I don't believe that the bread and wine are literally Jesus' body and blood. Does that mean I do not believe in the sacraments? Not at all.

Aaron

Travis

11-27-2001, 10:09 PM

Guitarman has already made my point. :)

ChrisHarbison

11-28-2001, 01:21 AM

Did God create abunch of baby animals and let them grow up first? No.

Prove that one then.

Really? "and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground" (Gen 2:5)

Bad wording on my part, admitted, but did God create those seeds ready for growth, or did they require millions of years to evolve from sludge?

Travis

11-28-2001, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by ChrisHarbison
Bad wording on my part, admitted, but did God create those seeds ready for growth, or did they require millions of years to evolve from sludge?

Their coming into existence through evolution was Him creating them.

Chrysostom

11-28-2001, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by JerryLove
Sure, the same as the odds of a peson forming in a womb are (purely mathmatically) 1 in several billion. It happens a few hundred thousand times a day successfully. There are many problems with those odds I have addressed repeatedly. They range from not accounting for tendancies, to assuimng the results that did occur are the only successfull results.i don't know enough about their specific methods. i assumed they would not be so daft as to forget that, but i can't say for a fact so i'll concede until i buy a book on it or something.

Originally posted by JerryLove
There are pre reptiles, and pre birds, and pre whales (blue-green algie fits all three). But very few animals ever fossilized, and very few of the fossils have been uncovered, and certain conditions are more likely to produce fossils than others. So if you want a transition between a t-rex and an allosaurus, you may not find one. If you want a transition between a fish and a dinosaur, try a reptile.We should see a progressive line between fish and dinosaur. We don't.

Originally posted by JerryLove
What's wrong with homo-erectus? What about living transitions? Is a long-nosed finch a transition from a short-nosed finch to a really long nosed finch?i'll look more at homo-erectus (i bought a science reference book, proud of me?)

The finches aren't necessarily transitions, as we can easily explain these occurences by allele variances.

Originally posted by JerryLove
Yep. Those are reasonable undersutood. You have modern examples of both ranging from effectively "none" to "fully modern".Can you share?

Originally posted by JerryLove
Anyone want to explain "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days--and also afterward--when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them."? What are "daughters of men"? (this is pre-Noah).This isn't to me but i figured i'd say something. Some people that the Nephilim (which are fallen angels) had tainted the bloodline by reproducing with human females. This is one possible reason proposed for the flood. It sounds like an interesting concept and i've been trying to find a good book or something about this.

calebb

11-29-2001, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by PleasuresPain

Their coming into existence through evolution was Him creating them.

How does evolution happen without a sun? Evolution says plants, etc existed first. Do you think the 'light' that existed before the sun was created on day 4 (or time-period 4 as some people would call it) supplied the plants with nourishment to evolve?

And the Bible clearly says that man was made out of the dirt and God breathed is life into them. Evolution says man evolved from animals. How do you explain this??

-Caleb

JerryLove

11-29-2001, 11:09 AM

i don't know enough about their specific methods. i assumed they would not be so daft as to forget that, but i can't say for a fact so i'll concede until i buy a book on it or something. The same way I got the "baby forming" one. They look at an Smino Acid, count the number af parts, factor by the number of potential parts, and give it 1 in (computed number) odds.

We should see a progressive line between fish and dinosaur. We don't. We have a good deal of pieces between the two, fossils of every species of animal that ever existed between the two don't exist. Fossilization is a rare event.

The finches aren't necessarily transitions, as we can easily explain these occurences by allele variances. That all depends on weather their evolution continues.

Can you share? One part eyes occur in some shrimp and single-celled organisms. Two part eyes occur in flatworms, Three part eyes appear in nautilus. Donny says he's comfortable with 4+ part eyes.

You start with a patch of photosensitive tissue. Then you add a dimple (which eventually curves around on itself to a pinhole open). Then it fills with fluid.

JerryLove

11-29-2001, 11:11 AM

How does evolution happen without a sun? Evolution says plants, etc existed first. Do you think the 'light' that existed before the sun was created on day 4 (or time-period 4 as some people would call it) supplied the plants with nourishment to evolve? Under the "non-literalist" view, only the basic tennent of Genesis (that God created the world through his will, and created man in his image) is true, not the details (order of creation, method, etc). So the plants did not grow before the sun.

calebb

11-29-2001, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by JerryLove
Under the "non-literalist" view, only the basic tennent of Genesis (that God created the world through his will, and created man in his image) is true, not the details (order of creation, method, etc). So the plants did not grow before the sun.

Ok, so let me clarify:

First, the days (which God always says 'there was a morning and an evening, the fourth day,' for example) are not going to be taken as a real day.

That was a good point whoever brought up communion. But if God said 'Take, this is my body, and contains my hemoglobin, red blood cells and muscle tissue' we might view it differently. Just like the days of creation might be viewed differently by me if God wasn't so specific in telling how long a day was (since He was defining a day at that time)

Second, these non-literalists are not even going to take the days right? Like maybe by fourth day (time period?), he really meant first day (time period)... LOL...

Maybe by do not commit adultery He really meant do not commit adultery unless you have a good reason to - like your spouse makes you REALLY upset, then maybe its ok to do?

Also, since how do the non-literalists explain Man evolving from other animals? Since its pretty clear that God made man from dirt and breathed life into man.

-Caleb

JerryLove

11-29-2001, 01:44 PM

As a non-Christian, I am not fully qualified to speak for non-literalist Christians, but here is how I understand the belief.

First, the days (which God always says 'there was a morning and an evening, the fourth day,' for example) are not going to be taken as a real day. Correct, and they probibly should not. The Hebrew word you are translating as day is "yowm". It can be a leteral or figurative day "a space of time defined by an associated term". Eon, is a modern word derived from it.

Just like the days of creation might be viewed differently by me if God wasn't so specific in telling how long a day was (since He was defining a day at that time) Tell me again how you know it's evening or morning when there is no sun?

Second, these non-literalists are not even going to take the days right? Like maybe by fourth day (time period?), he really meant first day Well, there are a few things out of order. The nonliteralist I have spoken with believe that the Bible is the *inspired* word of God. People mess up the details (like the order) but God ensures the message ("I created the universe, and fashioned you in my own image") come through.

Maybe by do not commit adultery He really meant do not commit adultery unless you have a good reason to - like your spouse makes you REALLY upset, then maybe its ok to do? Anyone remember what the term for this is? Throwing in a non-sequitar to stir up the pot (it's similar to a straw-man argument but not the same).

Also, since how do the non-literalists explain Man evolving from other animals? Since its pretty clear that God made man from dirt and breathed life into man. Everything is made from dirt and sunlight. There is no problem there. They tend to believe the God created man's spirit, more than his body. That is how we are like God after all; not that we look like God, but that we are creators, thinkers. We have the qualities of God. God loves, gets angry, gets lonley, want's praise, creates. So do we.

Unregistered

11-29-2001, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by JerryLove
Anyone remember what the term for this is? Throwing in a non-sequitar to stir up the pot (it's similar to a straw-man argument but not the same).

But a non-sequitor is when your evidence doesn't support your conclusion. In my adultery example, the evidence DOES support the conclusion: ie, if we don't take that scripture literally, then adultery is ok sometimes.

-Caleb

JerryLove

11-30-2001, 10:34 AM

You are right, I am mixing up that term. I must find what I *ment* when I have been using "non-sequiter". (I've been using it when people make statements unrelated to the discussion at hand, not conclusions unrelated to their support). It's been a long time ;)

MrCrabby

11-30-2001, 01:07 PM

Everything is made from dirt and sunlight.
I heard someone say that everything is made from water.
Which is right?
sequitor
Isn't it spelled sequtur?

JerryLove

11-30-2001, 02:02 PM

I heard someone say that everything is made from water. Yep, that too. (actually, there are some organisms without H2O molecules in their mix, Virui come to mind, and those things that resperate iron...

Chrysostom

11-30-2001, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by JerryLove
The same way I got the "baby forming" one. They look at an Smino Acid, count the number af parts, factor by the number of potential parts, and give it 1 in (computed number) odds.The odds of a baby forming are different than the odds of a specific baby forming. i assume you're referring to the odds of a specific baby.

Originally posted by JerryLove
We have a good deal of pieces between the two, fossils of every species of animal that ever existed between the two don't exist. Fossilization is a rare event.Hopefully you understand what i mean by transitionals--major changes. For instance, on the eyes you had each part of the eye forming, meaning that you covered all major developments. Can you do the same for fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, dinosaur, bird, mammal, whale, human..?

Originally posted by JerryLove
That all depends on weather their evolution continues.There's a difference between evolution and allele variation. Evolution, as i am referring to , relies on mutations. Allele variations account for blond or brown hair, so would you say that blond-haired people are "evolved?"

Originally posted by JerryLove
One part eyes occur in some shrimp and single-celled organisms. Two part eyes occur in flatworms, Three part eyes appear in nautilus. Donny says he's comfortable with 4+ part eyes.Thanks. Not sure about the 4+, as i'm not sure that Donny is an authoritative source, but i trust you ;)

JerryLove

11-30-2001, 02:35 PM

The odds of a baby forming are different than the odds of a specific baby forming. i assume you're referring to the odds of a specific baby. Replace "baby" with "amino acid" and you see my point.

Hopefully you understand what i mean by transitionals--major changes. For instance, on the eyes you had each part of the eye forming, meaning that you covered all major developments. Can you do the same for fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, dinosaur, bird, mammal, whale, human..? Depends on how much detail you end up wanting. The fossil record is a map torn into 1,000,000 pieces. Only 10,000 survived and we only have 1,000 of those. We can show you the road from Key West to Jacksonville, and show you that a similar looking road appears further along the same line and goes into Maine, but there are missing pieces any time you want to see too many steps on too large a piece of map.

I can list the last 5-10 species in the Homonid line. I can list some intermediaries between the various families and their predecessors. There is not a complete record.

Of course, in addition to everything else, the counter-ideas (like creationism) fail completely. Evolution matches the fossil record, though the record isn't comeplete enouh, or dug up enough, to make a complete and accurate picture of excatly what evolved into what and when.

Don't confuse the fact of evolution with the details of the evolutionary tree.

There's a difference between evolution and allele variation. Evolution, as i am referring to , relies on mutations. Allele variations account for blond or brown hair, so would you say that blond-haired people are "evolved?" Evolution occurs when a new trait is introduced to an animal. Since it looks likely that early hominids lacked blonde hair, I would say yes, blond hair was an evolutionary adaptation in populations in northern Europe.

calebb

11-30-2001, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by JerryLove
Evolution occurs when a new trait is introduced to an animal. Since it looks likely that early hominids lacked blonde hair, I would say yes, blond hair was an evolutionary adaptation in populations in northern Europe.

There's no evidence for that ;)

Of course allele variation, (ie natural selection) happens. Just look at what happened to the moths during the industrial revolution in England. All the black moths flourished because they could camofauge in the soot. The white moths stood out and were eaten by birds.

This by no stretch of the imagination means that black moths evolved out of white moths by a random mutation. As far as history goes back there have always been both white and black moths in England.

So this is the line between microevolution and macroevolution.

Microevolution happens all the time. Its natural selection and happens due to environmental changes, etc.

Macroevolution requires a mutation to happen so that a new allele is formed. Up until ~a year ago I used to keep up on this alot. And there were NO peer-reviewed journals with any proof of macroevolution. Have you come across any published evidence of macroevolution in your studies?

Microevolution does not equal macroevolution.

And believe me, there are enough people that are looking for evidence of evolution that the moment there is proof of macroevolution it **WILL** be published.

note: peer reviewed journals require the journal article to be reviewed by the author's peers for scientific accuracy before publishing is allowed. Most popular journals are: ie, all American Chemical Society journals, Science, Scientific American, etc etc.

-Caleb

JerryLove

11-30-2001, 09:14 PM

There's no evidence for that OK, find the gene in someone with no European ancestory. Either everyone lost it except the Europeans, or they gained it.

Of course allele variation, (ie natural selection) happens. Natural selection is the process by which certain members of a group are more likely to reproduce than others. That is not the definition of "allele variation". Allele's are the various forms of a gene. How did this variation occur? Through evolutionary processes (mutation, replication error, DNA insertion, mutagen, etc).

So this is the line between microevolution and macroevolution. There is no such thing ans micro or macro evolution. They are terms used by creationists to try to reconcile common knowledge with a disbelief in the reality of evolution.

Have you come across any published evidence of macroevolution in your studies? Am I aware of a genetic change occuring? Yes. It occurs both incidentally and deliberately. Look at the glow-in-the-dark plants, the flourescent rabbits, the rat with the fly eye gene. Look also at blonde hair, red hair, brown hair, black hair, etc. (too many different allels to be from a single ancestor. How many blood types do you think the first person had?

calebb

11-30-2001, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by JerryLove
There is no such thing ans micro or macro evolution. They are terms used by creationists to try to reconcile common knowledge with a disbelief in the reality of evolution.

Hehe, nice try ;) Look them up on dictionary.com Its actually microevolution versus macroevolution as I indicated in my last post.

Anyway, whether or not you personally believe in them, I just made the case (two posts up) for how these two ideas are different. Call them what you will, but allele variation and new alleles developing are two different phenomenah. (dictionary.com does a good job explaining them)

- I gave you a great example of microevolution (moths in england) This is well documented and I can get you sources if you do not believe me. (I first read about it in a Biology class long ago)

- Now I am asking you to do the same. Give me some documented proof of macroevolution - a new trait developing (that was not only not expressed previously, but also did not even exist).

I'm not sure how much more in depth the discussion can get if I'm the only one presenting external scientific data from peer-reviewed journals.

And I'll have to once again state that proof of microevolution does not equal proof of macroevolution since they are two different ideas.

-Caleb

JerryLove

11-30-2001, 10:39 PM

Anyway, whether or not you personally believe in them, I just made the case (two posts up) for how these two ideas are different. Yea, one isn't evolution (the passing of existing traits) the other is (the creation of new traits).

I gave you a great example of microevolution (moths in england) This is well documented and I can get you sources if you do not believe me. I'm quite familiar with the moths in England. Show me evidence that that species existed 100,000,000 years ago. Can't? How did it get here?

Now I am asking you to do the same. Give me some documented proof of macroevolution - a new trait developing You did yourself, blonde hair. Offer a theory with *any* emperical support that allows for the number of gene variations in modern man without mutations of genes. I offered another with blood type.

I'm not sure how much more in depth the discussion can get if I'm the only one presenting external scientific data from peer-reviewed journals. Don't fall as you try to climb on the high horse.

And I'll have to once again state that proof of microevolution does not equal proof of macroevolution since they are two different ideas. And you are defining them differently than other people. But that is neither here nor there. Evolution is the idea that new forms of life come from old forms of life. Changing the number of blonds is trends withing a population, not the formation of a new population. OTOH, when blondes first appeard, that was the neccessairy mechanism for evolution. A species change in a group as intermingled as humanity is unlikey.

Want antother? Find HIV 100 years ago. Not good enough? HIV2 30 years ago. Your logic doesn't even make sense. You want observed mutation?

"Observed mutations have occurred by mobile introns, gene duplications, recombination, transpositions, retroviral insertions (horizontal gene transfer), base substitutions, base deletions, base insertions, and chromosomal rearrangements. Chromosomal rearrangements include genome duplication (e.g. polyploidy), unequal crossing over, inversions, translocations, fissions, fusions, chromosome duplications and chromosome deletions (Futuyma 1998, pp. 267-271, 283-294)."

"There have been numerous observations of irreversible morphological change in populations of organisms (Endler 1986). Examples are the change in color of some organ, such as the yellow body or brown eyes of Drosophila, coat color in mice (Barsh 1996), scale color in fish (Houde 1988), and plumage pattern in birds (Morton 1990). Almost every imaginable heritable variation in size, length, width, or number of some physical aspect of animals has been recorded (Johnston and Selander 1973; Futuyma 1998, p. 247-262). This last fact is extremely important for common descent, since the major morphological differences between many species (e.g. species of amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds) are simple alterations in size of certain aspects of their respective paralogous structures."

"Many organisms have been observed to acquire various new functions which they did not have previously (Endler 1986). Bacteria have acquired resistance to viruses (Luria and Delbruck 1943) and to antibiotics (Lederberg and Lederberg 1952). Bacteria have also evolved the ability to synthesize new amino acids and DNA bases (Futuyma 1998, p. 274). Unicellular organisms have evolved the ability to use nylon and pentachlorophenol (which are both unnatural manmade chemicals) as their sole carbon sources (Okada, Negoro et al. 1983; Orser and Lange 1994). The acquisition of this latter ability entailed the evolution of an entirely novel multienzyme metabolic pathway (Lee, Yoon et al. 1998). Bacteria have evolved to grow at previously unviable temperatures (Bennett, Lenski et al. 1992). In E. coli, we have seen the evolution (by artificial selection) of an entirely novel metabolic system including the ability to metabolize a new carbon source, the regulation of this ability by new regulatory genes, and the evolution of the ability to transport this new carbon source across the cell membrane (Hall 1982).

Such evolutionary acquisition of new function is also common in metazoans. We have observed insects become resistant to insecticides (Ffrench-Constant, Anthony et al. 2000), animals and plants acquire disease resistance (Carpenter and O'Brien 1995; Richter and Ronald 2000), crustaceans evolve new defenses to predators (Hairston 1990), amphibians evolve tolerance to habitat acidification (Andren, Marden et al. 1989), and mammals acquire immunity to poisons (Bishop 1981)."

http://www.molevol.org/camel/projects/innovation/
http://www.ib3.gmu.edu/taylor/MNPSTUTORIAL/dbsearch1.txt
http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/companies/apt/ap/a33/a332abs.html

That mutations occur is not disputed. Heck, even the creationist sites accept mutation, they just argue it's never positive "http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/508.asp"

calebb

12-01-2001, 01:52 AM

Ok, now we're talking. I'll post some more tomorrow. I never came across these articles before :)

*climbs down from high horse*
:D

-Caleb

Chrysostom

12-08-2001, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by JerryLove
Depends on how much detail you end up wanting. The fossil record is a map torn into 1,000,000 pieces. Only 10,000 survived and we only have 1,000 of those. We can show you the road from Key West to Jacksonville, and show you that a similar looking road appears further along the same line and goes into Maine, but there are missing pieces any time you want to see too many steps on too large a piece of map.

I can list the last 5-10 species in the Homonid line. I can list some intermediaries between the various families and their predecessors. There is not a complete record.

Of course, in addition to everything else, the counter-ideas (like creationism) fail completely. Evolution matches the fossil record, though the record isn't comeplete enouh, or dug up enough, to make a complete and accurate picture of excatly what evolved into what and when.

Don't confuse the fact of evolution with the details of the evolutionary tree.Given this, do you now agree with me that it is not proven fact (don't get picky on that --you get my point, right?) that the modern theory of evolution is the reason why we are here today?

JerryLove

12-09-2001, 09:10 AM

Given this, do you now agree with me that it is not proven fact (don't get picky on that --you get my point, right?) that the modern theory of evolution is the reason why we are here today? No, I just reiterated that evolution *is* proven fact.

calebb

12-09-2001, 05:03 PM

Those articles are interesting. The first one is just a variation of alleles arguement worded differently, but the next two seem to imply that macroevolution exists...

Anyway, I thought I'd approach this froma different angle: Tell me if these conclusions seem accurate:

Evolutionism
1. Humans are the result of incredible luck.

2. Man has no purpose for existence, apart from what he invents.

3. There is no life after death. Ultimately all there is to look forward to is nothingness.

4. Man is merely a mutated animal. Morality is an absurdity. Since we are only animals, why not follow our instincts in order to fulfill our bodily desires?

Versus

Creationism
1. Humans are a masterpiece of careful engineering.

2. Manking was created to fulfill the purposes and destiny outlines by a Creator.

3. Humans were created to spend an eternity with God who made them

4. Mankind was made in the image of God. He has been given a conscience and a desire for truth and righteousness.

I know there are so-called creationist-evolutionists that believe God created animals and we evolved from them, but then you gotta explain how God breathed His life into man... when he was sufficiently evolved? lol :D

-Caleb

JerryLove

12-09-2001, 05:19 PM

Evolution
1) No particular luck was required for a bipedial homonid with high cognative function. It's interesting that what is usually a rather unimportant attribute (intelligence) has a "magic point" where it becomes so incredably powerful a tool.
2) Evolution does not address a purpose or lack of purpose. That is a theological or philisophical discussion. Evolution is about biology.
3) Evolution does not address the nature of existance, only the process of change in life.
4) Man is an animal. Morality is a philosophical discussion.

Creationism
1) If deliberately designed, the designer is very poor. The list of maladaptions in hominids is extensive.
2) A belief of Biblical Creationists, though unsupported emperically.
3) Same as 2.
4) "Image of God" is also true for Biblical creationists. However, you could go back into a "nature of sin" thread if you want to argue that man was given a desire for knowledge then kicked out of Eaden for persuing it.

My version?

Evolution
1) Life changes.
2) New species come from old species.
3) Homo Sapiens came from earlier hominids through the evolutionary process.

Biblical creation
1) Life does not change (or maybe, but only to a certain degree)
2) Life was created all at once by a supernatural God.
3) Homo Sapiens are special and unique in comparison to all other creatures. They are the only ones with the "breath of life" and have dominion over all.

Chrysostom

12-10-2001, 02:14 AM

Originally posted by JerryLove
No, I just reiterated that evolution *is* proven fact.Let's put this into perspective. You're trying to tell me how to get from your house to mine (tampa to arlington). You can tell me where your house is, where my house is, and where baton rouge is. You then tell me that you know the way here. However, you have no idea how to get from your house to baton rouge or from baton rouge to my house!

Analogous to:
i know what fish are and what reptiles are. You then tell me you know how to get to reptiles because you know what amphibians are.

JerryLove

12-10-2001, 09:37 AM

Don't confuse the fact of evolution with the details of the evolutionary tree.

Travis

12-10-2001, 10:26 AM

Evolutionism

1. Humans are the result of incredible luck.

Nope. It was God's method of creation. No luck or chance involved at all.

2. Man has no purpose for existence, apart from what he invents.

All commandments from the Bible apply, the creation story is just not literal.

3. There is no life after death. Ultimately all there is to look forward to is nothingness.

Again, what the Bible was said on the issue holds true.

4. Man is merely a mutated animal. Morality is an absurdity. Since we are only animals, why not follow our instincts in order to fulfill our bodily desires?

Biologically man is an animal, yes. But morality still holds true because of what God's Word tells us. The bible was specifically for humans.

Creationism

1. Humans are a masterpiece of careful engineering.

I agree that they are carefully engineered, but I wouldn't say masterpiece. We are not perfect in spirit, mind, or body.

2. Manking was created to fulfill the purposes and destiny outlines by a Creator.

That holds true with theistic evolution as well.

3. Humans were created to spend an eternity with God who made them

That holds true with theistic evolution as well.

4. Mankind was made in the image of God. He has been given a conscience and a desire for truth and righteousness.

We were made in the image of God. That in no way says we are perfect in mind nor in body. We do have souls, but as Jerry said, that is irrelevent when it comes to evolution vs. creation.

I know there are so-called creationist-evolutionists that believe God created animals and we evolved from them, but then you gotta explain how God breathed His life into man... when he was sufficiently evolved? lol :D

He "breathed His life into man" by having their minds evolve into something unlike other animals. Where do you get the idea that it must be an exact second of breathing?

The corerect term is "theistic evolutionist," I believe.

Chrysostom

12-10-2001, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by JerryLove
Don't confuse the fact of evolution with the details of the evolutionary tree.That's what i'm saying. The question is not, "can it happen?" Instead, the question is, "did it happen?"

JerryLove

12-11-2001, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by mustbenothing
That's what i'm saying. The question is not, "can it happen?" Instead, the question is, "did it happen?" To you, perhaps. To anyone who believes in evolution (e.g. any non-creationist) the fact that evolution occured is proven. The arguable parts are over things like order (what appeared or disappeared when) and succession (what animal preceeded what). Making such analysis of living animals is quite doable. But the fossil record is scattered, incomplete, and less testable than a living creature. So you can run into problems like findding the head of a new species one place and the hip of the same species another and not realizing they are the same, or thinking something disappeared (say a cethleocanth) because you stopped finding fossils. Or placing something in the wrong part of the evolutionary tre because your paleobiologist comes to a wrong conclusion about it's life.

Chrysostom

12-11-2001, 04:00 PM

i will give you an example more closely related to this board. Let us say that someone argues "God would do ___ based on principles found ____." The passage does not say it outright, but they feel that it sets God's nature as such that He will not do ___. Then, someone clearly shows an example where God did it. Real life: one might ask if God would force someone to do something, then still hold them accountable for it. Examples Biblically include Assyria, Pharoah, and where God says He does this in Romans 9. Therefore, it was very easy to resolve.

Therefore, i admit that one could argue in circles all day over "could evolution happen?" Thus, the easiest thing to do is to show that it did happen. However, we cannot reasonably show that it did happen without many assumptions. For two extreme examples, you cannot show me a single-celled organism and a human and say "clearly humans came from single-celled organisms" but you can give me a short-beaked finch and a long-beaked finch and i will believe you that they might be in the same "evolutionary line." We must, obviously, come to a compromise because i realistically know that we won't have enough fossilization and enough unearthed fossils to present a full case as such. Let's say i have the letter combination ASDFHJKL and you say that it evolved into QWERUIOP. i will not accept them as directly transitional. However, let's say that you showed me QSDFJILP and then you showed me QWDFUIOP.
ASDFHJKL
QSDFJILP
QWDFUIOP
QWERUIOP
i can see the slow and progressive change. i do not ask you to provide each mutation specifically, but i would prefer large groups of mutations. For instance, you clearly gave each progressive mutation for the parts of the eye. i would accept a one-part eye, three-part eye, and completed eye, assuming that we could logically reason the remainder of mutations.

Therefore, if we were to go from a sea to land animal:
1. Sea animal
2. sea animal which can walk on land
3. sea animal which can walk on land and breathe air
4. land animal
would be the idea i would desire.

Do we have a few good examples of this?

JerryLove

12-11-2001, 04:07 PM

http://www.myherp.com/articles/other/evolution.htm

calebb

12-11-2001, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by PleasuresPain
Evolutionism

He "breathed His life into man" by having their minds evolve into something unlike other animals. Where do you get the idea that it must be an exact second of breathing?

Because the Bible says it was.

I Tim 2:13 (in the verses relating to other topics, but this sentence is still valid...) For it was Adam who was first created, {and} then Eve.

So what about the 'man' that was one evolutionary step before Adam. He maybe... didn't have a completely opposable thumb? Why would such a small difference (remember evolution happens incrementally) make him not the one that God breathed His spirit into?

Gen 5:2 He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created.

What about the day before Adam was evolved? Did Adam have a mother? Did Eve have a mother? In order for them to be evolved they must have had parents. uh oh, time to start taking more scriptures 'less - literally'

Deu 4:32 - For ask now of the days that are past, which were before thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth, and ask from the one side of heaven unto the other, whether there hath been any such thing as this great thing is, or hath been heard like it?

Hmm, the day that God created man. This must still be an analogy even though it was written much later then Genesis.

1 Cor 11:9 - for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake.

Shouldn't this be 'evolved,' not created?

And someone said that man is not perfect. From your perspective man probably isn't perfect. From God's perspective, we are created exactly as he wanted, with no margin of error.... Evolution is proven to be based on random mutations. Unless God's will for how we are all created is also random, this would not agree with scripture.

I know, thats a bunch of random thoughts, but they are all food for thought I think!

-Caleb

JerryLove

12-11-2001, 05:54 PM

Gee, if we didn't take the creation of Adam as exclusive and literal we would have problems like

Gen 4:15 - Who would not have recognized Cain? The population of the world could not have been more than a few dozen. (actually, three men and an unknown number of women (they don't appear to be worth of mention)).

Or Gen 4:16 - A city of three people? That's called a house.

Gen 6:4 - Sons of God and daughters of men.

calebb

12-11-2001, 07:03 PM

Lets go according to the geneologies back then - the earth is between 5,000 and 7,000 years old. We'll say 6,000 for calculations sake. Lets assume that nobody lived to be 950 years old. (how do you explain that, evolutionarily?) Lets say everyone generates two complete families, when they are 20 years old, and no more kids after that. Lets even say that people die after having their 4 kids / 2 families, to make the calculations simpler! (And to keep our numbers conservative)

So, at 4000 BC 2 people, have 2 families. at 3980, those 2 families each make 2 families, 3960, these 4 families each make 2 families, etc

6000/20 = 300 '20 year' generations

Ok, so after 300 tries there would be: 1(adam and eve)*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2... or 2 ^ 300 which = 1,073,741,824 families = 2 billion people

Well, the earth actually has 4 billion people right? I guess we are a bit conservative too, since people live past 20, and sometimes have more than 4 kids. Sure you take into account plagues, etc, but I've been more than generous on keeping the numbers conservative.

Now, if hominids reproduced at this same rate before God 'breathed His life into them,' There would be, lets estimate 1.25 million years of families (the supposed age of homo erectus)

1,250,000 / 20 = 62,500 generations

Lets say 2 families per 20 years again (but again, they might have reproduced when they were 13, not waited till they were 20, which would increase this number alot)

Well, there would be 2.36 * 10^18814

Thats right, a number that is almost 20,000 characters long. There should be ALOT of unevolved hominids around that do not have the breath of God in them.

Anyways, yes, its A-OK to believe that all people started from Adam.

-Caleb

calebb

12-12-2001, 12:49 AM

Actually, maybe once God breathed his life into Adam, and we humans had a conscience, man set up 'concentration camps' to kill off all the un-life-of-God-filled hominids. (Because clearly there is a large difference between monkeys and man - monkeys must have been far enough back on the evolutionary chain for us to not have to kill them off)

-Caleb

JerryLove

12-12-2001, 07:39 AM

Sigh, I can see the topic slipping...

Lets go according to the geneologies back then The problem with that is that they are fictional and contrary to real data.

Well, the earth actually has 4 billion people right? No, 6. And Population growth is often flat or negative.

Thats right, a number that is almost 20,000 characters long. There should be ALOT of unevolved hominids around that do not have the breath of God in them. That's a rediculious way to compute populations. If I were going to do that, I would say that ducks were created at the same time as humans, have more than 6 breeding cycles with typically 4-6 young that survive to maturity (1-2 years) so I would expect 3000-6000 generations with (let's be conservitive) 25 young each. So there should be 3000^25 ducks. The number is no where close. So under your logic, ducks must be well under the age of man since there are far less ducks than there should be.

Anyways, yes, its A-OK to believe that all people started from Adam. If you want to believe in the Boogie monster, Thor, and the tooth fairy.. Why not Adam too.

calebb

12-12-2001, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by JerryLove
Sigh, I can see the topic slipping...

If you want to believe in the Boogie monster, Thor, and the tooth fairy.. Why not Adam too.

The Bible doesn't talk about Boogie monster, Thor or the tooth fairy.

It does teach of Adam though.

But anyway, you said that in 6,000 years you couldn't get 6 billion people, and I'm just proving that it is indeed possible to get 6 trillion people even in 6,000 years.

-Caleb

Razuul

12-12-2001, 10:49 AM

This is all very disheartening. There are dozens of "straw men" used in the long-timespan and transitional fossil arguments. You just can't get anywhere trying to use biblical and scientific creation's research with a person that holds an adamant religious grip on evolution.
Bottom line here: What was just said is that the whole background of who we are and what salvation is has been "eroded" and evolved into a meaningless failry tale. Since Christ is called "The Last Adam", I guess HE is a fairy tale as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-Razuul

quote:
Originally posted by JerryLove
Sigh, I can see the topic slipping... If you want to believe in the Boogie monster, Thor, and the tooth fairy.. Why not Adam too.
-----------------------------------------------
quote:
Originally posted by Caleb
The Bible doesn't talk about Boogie monster, Thor or the tooth fairy.

It does teach of Adam though.

But anyway, you said that in 6,000 years you couldn't get 6 billion people, and I'm just proving that it is indeed possible to get 6 trillion people even in 6,000 years.

__________________
I'm that Christian the devil warned you about.

Razuul

12-12-2001, 11:01 AM

Sorry to not elaborate on the "Straw Men", there are too many to mention here. However, I will comment that radiometric dating methods are FULL OF HOLES that anyone can observe, even from a totally secular or anitGod mindset. In short, there are several variables and assumptions with radiometric dating. You have to assume that the rocks are the same age as the fossil, you have to know the exact composition of the rocks in their ORIGINAL state, and you must assume that there has been no contamination... Well you can see that the first two are a stretch, and most all fossils are found in SEDIMENTARY ROCK, which means that there has been water contamination, which would wash away many of the intermediary radioactive isotopes that form ionic compounds. I don't have a lot of "FAITH" in that system. You can get any age by changing the variables.
As for the old universe, there is a lot of excellent book called "Starlight and Time" written by a physics PhD explaining that black hole gravitational effects during the creation week could account for starlight and a universe that seems older than 6000 years, due to time dilation.
Please go to http:www.answersingenesis.com for all the information you could ask for.
>If evolution were true, pollution would be fine, since things would just evolve to meet the new environment. Racism would be fine because obviously some people aren't as evolved as others! Murder, rape, and humanism would be the norm since that is the way of the natural animal kingdom as we see it in this fallen world.
Alot more than my $.02, Razuul

JerryLove

12-12-2001, 11:54 AM

But anyway, you said that in 6,000 years you couldn't get 6 billion people, and I'm just proving that it is indeed possible to get 6 trillion people even in 6,000 years. I said that? I don't recall / see me doing so. When / where is the post?

JerryLove

12-12-2001, 12:05 PM

You just can't get anywhere trying to use biblical and scientific creation's research with a person that holds an adamant religious grip on evolution. Or anyone with a reasonale understanding of science. (There is no such thing as scientific creationsim, I have yet to see a creationist argument reached through scientific method).

Since Christ is called "The Last Adam", I guess HE is a fairy tale as well I find it more likely than not that Jesus is a fictional charicter. Though there may have been a real person.

In short, there are several variables and assumptions with radiometric dating. You have to assume that the rocks are the same age as the fossil This assumption has nothing to do with radiometric dating. And what other age would you propose? If the animal is not sealed in quickly, it deteroriates. Or are you proposing that dead animals were somehow embeded in already solid rock?

you have to know the exact composition of the rocks in their ORIGINAL state, and you must assume that there has been no contamination You are being inspecific. What property of sedementary rock do you feel changes and addects either the age of the rock in relation to the fossils in it, or affects the rateable date of rock. Which radiometric method are you referring to in which type of rock. These claims are very general and unsubstantiated.

Well you can see that the first two are a stretch, and most all fossils are found in SEDIMENTARY ROCK, which means that there has been water contamination, which would wash away many of the intermediary radioactive isotopes that form ionic compounds. Which isotope are you worried about loosing from what? What dating system are you referring to?

As for the old universe, there is a lot of excellent book called "Starlight and Time" written by a physics PhD explaining that black hole gravitational effects during the creation week could account for starlight and a universe that seems older than 6000 years, due to time dilation. The speed of light was Einsteins proof for time dialation. If the speed of light is not a constant, than the support for dialation disappears, if it is, you cannot have lght from an object 100,000ly away in a universe 6,000 years old. Considereing the way the cosmos evolves, it is unlikely there were any signifigant number of black holes in the beginning.

Please go to http:www.answersingenesis.com for all the information you could ask for. Cop out. Please go to http://www.talkorigins.org for why your site is wrong.

If evolution were true, pollution would be fine, since things would just evolve to meet the new environment. As George Carlin said "The Earth isn't going anywhere, we are". You are creating a straw-man argument.

Racism would be fine because obviously some people aren't as evolved as others! Another claim not supported by evolution or evolutionists. IOW, another straw-man argument.

Murder, rape, and humanism would be the norm since that is the way of the natural animal kingdom as we see it in this fallen world. Show me the murderous, rapist, humanist butterfly please.

Chrysostom

12-13-2001, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by JerryLove
http://www.myherp.com/articles/other/evolution.htm The problem here is that it goes from 100% fish (Eusthenopteron) to 100% amphibian (Ichthyostega) and tries to pass it off as a transition.

JerryLove

12-13-2001, 05:28 PM

What, you think there should be fish that resemble amphibians? Like lungfish or mudskippers, or walking catfish (heck, catfish in general)? Lucky for me, there are.

Razuul

12-15-2001, 11:39 AM

Razuul: Since Christ is called "The Last Adam", I guess HE is a fairy tale as well?!

JerryLove: I find it more likely than not that Jesus is a fictional character. Though there may have been a real person.

Razuul's Reply: I apologize for the divergent issues raised in my previous posts. I did not realize that you were not a Christian. I do intend to answer each of the questions you raised, as I have time to study each of them out. However, my earlier direction may not be the most direct. You have been very active in this thread, so maybe you could re-focus it a little bit, I certainly don't have the time to get caught up in a myriad of side issues. Maybe you could let me/us know how to best minister to you. BTW, I did spend several hours on the website you posted, and I thank you for challenging me in many areas. You have urged me to get back into my creationist studies.

Razuul

12-15-2001, 11:58 AM

Razuul: [With evolution,] Murder, rape, and humanism would be the norm since that is the way of the natural animal kingdom as we see it in this fallen world.

JerryLove: Show me the murderous, rapist, humanist butterfly please.

Razuul's Reply: There is certainly much violence in the world, on a national level and a personal level. I don't want to get off track talking about the American criminal justice philosophy, which is faltering since its shift toward rehabilitation (humanist concept) versus punishment (according to Biblical concepts). The animal kingdom has been described as "red in tooth and claw". Interestingly enough, on your website I found information about Xylocaris Maculipennis, homosexual rapist bedbugs! http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html Just for your enjoyment, I DO admit to believing that all animals were herbivores prior to Adam's original sin, and that death was not present before sin. That is why God declared that His creation was "...very good" in Genesis 1:31. The first death was the animal that was killed for Adam and Eve's clothing, which was required due to their recent sin.

JerryLove

12-15-2001, 12:59 PM

In the interest of serving your request to keep the thread on-topic, I will not respond here to the problems and issues with either your view of the justice system (not evolution) nor with your view of creationism (not evolution). Feel free to start (or go to) the appropriate thread for those discussions.

Razuul

12-17-2001, 11:13 PM

Razuul: If evolution were true, pollution would be fine, since things would just evolve to meet the new environment.

JerryLove: As George Carlin said "The Earth isn't going anywhere, we are". You are creating a straw-man argument.

Raz's Reply: No, this is not a strawman. I feel you comment is somewhat making light of the subject… My point: I believe that changes in the environment happen too suddenly for the supposed evolutionary timeline. You would have to admit that in the case of modern water pollution, environmental changes are too intense and sudden for evolutionary changes to take place, and the aquatic life suffers. In support of catastrophic creationism, ancient dead things (fossils) point to sudden severe environmental changes when many things died. It is sensible for the creationist to see fossilized things that are no longer alive today because they simply had no ability to adapt to a new environment.

JerryLove

12-17-2001, 11:31 PM

My point: I believe that changes in the environment happen too suddenly for the supposed evolutionary timeline. You would have to admit that in the case of modern water pollution, environmental changes are too intense and sudden for evolutionary changes to take place. Actually, a recent study on a population of north American mosqidos showed that a genetic change had occured in the past 5 years which altered their life / fertility cycle, allowing them to breed later into the cold months in response to Global Warming. I can aslo show everything from Salmon, to goatsbeard plants, to virui changin in the last century (or less) in response to stimuli.

Though yes, catastropic changes trigger mass extinctions as creatures fail to adapt quickly enough. Guess what is going on right now? You guessed it, the rapid reduction of biodiversity on the planet Earth (the beginnings of a mass extinction)

and the aquatic life suffers. In support of catastrophic creationism, ancient dead things (fossils) point to sudden severe environmental changes when many things died. It is sensible for the creationist to see fossilized things that are no longer alive today because they simply had no ability to adapt to a new environment. The problem with creationsim isn't the extinction of 99% of all the species that ever lived, it's the emergence of life forms. Biblical creation believes in a certain order and timeframe for creation of life which is completely inconsistant with the fossil record, and strongly conflicts with the DNA evidence that proves species are related. It also proposes a timeline ludicrous to every reasnable astrophysicist, geologist, palentologist, archeologist, and radiation physicist on the planet.

TruthWarrior

12-20-2001, 01:58 AM

interesting..... i'lll read the whole thread myself tomorrow..... i think i've found a hole...
ur making me a better debater, Jerry!...

TruthWarrior

12-20-2001, 02:49 AM

Originally posted by JerryLove
Or anyone with a reasonale understanding of science. (There is no such thing as scientific creationsim, I have yet to see a creationist argument reached through scientific method).

This was a very low, ignorant comment. It would be equivalent to me saying that Daoism is foolish because few Daoists present their beliefs logically. But i understand it was a mistake...

Perhaps u never stopped to consider the many wonderful minds that upheld the Creationist theory:

(scientific disciplines established by theme in parenthesis; discoveries, inventions, developments in brackets)

Isaac Newton (the greatest scientist of all time--- established Calculus and the field of Dynamics) [Law of gravity; reflecting telescope]

Robert Boyle (established the field of Chemistry)

Louis Agassiz (est. Glacial Geneology; Ichthyology)

William Ramsay (est. Isostopic Chemistry)

Rudolph Virchow (Pathology)

James C. Maxwell (est. Statistical Thermodynamics; Electrodynamics)

George Cuvier (est. Vertebrate Paleontology)

Lord Kelvin (Thermodynamics; Energetics)

Henri Fabre (Systematic Entymology; the "Father of Entymology")

William Herschel (Galactical Astronomy)

Gregor Mendel (Genetics)

Francis Bacon [Scientific Method] ---that's interesting.....

Johann Kepler (Physical Astronomy)

There are many more, modern and not-so-recent, who hold to this theory of Creation (theory only because techinically no human was there).
so the Creation theory is not something that is believed only by "backwoods hicks" and "Baptists ignoramuses".
Men with Ph.D's and half the alphabet behind their name hold to it also.
It's not an escape from science; indeed, science was rediscovered only a few years AFTER the Reformation, because men were freed in mind to think without some council condemning them to death for thinking.

My whole problem with evolution; indeed THE problem with evolution is explaining the beginning. Unless, of course, you're a "thiestic" evolutionist. Is there such a thing? Some say no; i say, maybe. Depending on what u mean by "evolution". IF u mean "adaptation to the enviroment", heck, I do that all the time! But if u mean that we evolved from apes to men slowly over many billions of years i cannot see any truth in it.
If u mean that the above happened and God was behind, i don't agree with u. It seems such a good idea; but there's in me a sense of "there's something wrong with this".

Does not the miraclous bring glory to God?

JerryLove---
"Guess what is going on right now? You guessed it, the rapid reduction of biodiversity on the planet Earth (the beginnings of a mass extinction) "

how so? please explain.

JerryLove---
"The problem with creationsim isn't the extinction of 99% of all the species that ever lived, it's the emergence of life forms. Biblical creation believes in a certain order and timeframe for creation of life which is completely inconsistant with the fossil record, and strongly conflicts with the DNA evidence that proves species are related. It also proposes a timeline ludicrous to every reasnable astrophysicist, geologist, palentologist, archeologist, and radiation physicist on the planet."

Adaptation is consitent with Biblical creation; as is micro-evolution.
Hey, since no one was really there for the Creation, we can't say exactly how old it is.

One thing that might disprove a billion year old earth is this:

1. The earth has a magnetic field that is gradually shrinking. If we go back year after year that magnetic field gets stronger. If we were to go back a billion years, it would be to strong for life to exists.

here's soething else (that i thought up; the above is my summary an article...)
2. A billion years is a LONG time; 6 billion is REALLY long. How could a fossil survive that long? Suppose it did. Imagine how much dirt would have to be dug up! Not just a a mile or two; but possibly 6 or 7...yet, the Earth's crust is only a few miles thick.

what is your response, Jerry. (am i doing better?)

JerryLove

12-20-2001, 08:06 AM

This was a very low, ignorant comment. It would be equivalent to me saying that Daoism is foolish because few Daoists present their beliefs logically. But i understand it was a mistake... Creationism is an illogical belief. You have not established that any of the people listed were creationists, though I'll assume they were Christian. So let's take a look at the few with fields of study related to bioscience / geology...

Louis Agassiz - Was neither a Biblical creationist nor an Evolutionist. In fact, Berkly's history of him describes him as "probably the last reputable scientist to reject evolution outright for any length of time after the publication of The Origin of Species.". He believed in catastrophism theory, that the Earth was wracked by periodic catastrophies that killed off many of the creatures and that new ones appeared after each catasrtophy. Oddly enough, Ahassiz also "drove another nail in the coffin of the Biblical Flood as a serious scientific hypothesis." Because of catastophisms lack of ability to explain natural phenomina except through "God made it that way." Agassiz saw most of his students / followers (including his son) convert to Evolutionism.

George Cuvier - Another old-Earth catastrophist. His beliefs were the foundation of Agassiz's (who was in fact a student of his). They also exist pre-darwin. He deliberately avoided trying to synch up the catastrophies with Biblical events.

William Herschel - I find no reference to evolutionary beliefs. But he was an old-universe believer and believed that planets formed through the cooelcing of material in space (such as nebula). This would also make him not a Biblical Creationist.

Gregor Mendel - "Mendel's attraction to research was based on his love of nature. He was not only interested in plants, but also in meteorology and theories of evolution. Mendel often wondered how plants obtained atypical characteristics" The guy discovered half the principles on how evolution worked. I find no support that he was a Biblical Creationist (despite being a monk).

I don't see a Biblical Creationist in the bunch.

There are many more, modern and not-so-recent, who hold to this theory of Creation (theory only because techinically no human was there). It's not a theory, it's a hypothesis. Theories create predictions which are tested and proven accurate. Theories are (more or less) proven true.

so the Creation theory is not something that is believed only by "backwoods hicks" and "Baptists ignoramuses". I wish I could express m appriciation for putting such words into my mouth.

Men with Ph.D's and half the alphabet behind their name hold to it also. OTOH, I cannot miss an opportunity to express my lack of impressedness with PhDs. I just know too many.

My whole problem with evolution; indeed THE problem with evolution is explaining the beginning. Then your problem is solved. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis (the beginning).

Depending on what u mean by "evolution". IF u mean "adaptation to the enviroment", heck, I do that all the time! But if u mean that we evolved from apes to men slowly over many billions of years i cannot see any truth in it. Weather you think it's likely really doesn't effect weather "theistic evolutionism" exists as a belief (or for that matter, a reality).

BTW, do you have *any* imperical support whatsoever that Homo Sapiens is not ape descended? Or is it all Biblical / instinctual?

how so? please explain. I thought that was self evident. We are loosing species from this planet at a predigious rate (for some of the more famous, I suggest trying to find a great awk, dodo, tasmanian tiger, etc.)

Adaptation is consitent with Biblical creation; as is micro-evolution While I disagree with that statement (and so did Christians for many centuries, until they had to accept that they themselves were breeding new traits in animals) what do you think micro-evolved into people? We were not around 20 million years ago.

The earth has a magnetic field that is gradually shrinking. If we go back year after year that magnetic field gets stronger. If we were to go back a billion years, it would be to strong for life to exists. No, the magnetic field is fluxuating. I'll save myself some time and quote NASA...

"The balance between these two processes determines the evolution of the magnetic field--namely, whether the field decays away or is regenerated. On the large scale of stars and planets, the field lines are caught up in the fluid motion and distorted. They then generate a new magnetic field before they diffuse away.

The geomagnetic field varies continuously. The decay time for the main dipole part of the geomagnetic field, whose constancy and simple geometry permits navigation by magnetic compasses, is probably in the neighborhood of 15,000 years. The largest part of this variation involves smaller features in the non-dipole field, which have smaller time constants and more complicated geometries. The variation must presumably arise from small changes in either of the two processes which give the dynamo action, or both.

So the rare field reversals are most likely caused by larger changes in the flow in the outer core, or in the way in which the field lines are wound into the flow by diffusion. What causes such major changes is not known. Indeed, it may be that such fluctuations are simply extreme examples of the continuum of fluctuations in the dynamo processes"

A billion years is a LONG time; 6 billion is REALLY long. How could a fossil survive that long? Suppose it did. Imagine how much dirt would have to be dug up! Not just a a mile or two; but possibly 6 or 7...yet, the Earth's crust is only a few miles thick. Firstly, it's worth noting that your timetabe is off. Life on Earth is 3.5 billion, not 7 billion (and most of the fossils you are talking about are <500 million). Secondly, one of the reasons that our fossil record is incomplete is because, in addition to something becoming a fossil being very unlikely, the odds of the fossil surviving, being exposed at the right time, and being noticed are also very low. The surface of the Earth does not simply get buried under more sediment, it fluxuates.

Also, your "miles deep" statement is pure assumption on your part. There is no mechanism making any such requirement.

what is your response, Jerry. (am i doing better?) You are making far to many unresearched assumptions.

TruthWarrior

12-20-2001, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by JerryLove
You are making far to many unresearched assumptions.

as are u jerry. U have not shown me why it must be 3.5 billion years. Indeed, my school science book said more than that (when i went to public school). Then a Nova video said less.

Another problem with evolution is that all evolutionists seem to have their own "pet" theories as to when and where.

You said creationism is "not a theory, it's a hypothesis." So is evolution; u have not been able to put evolution into a laboratory and test it out. And then, u can make up strawmen to answer for that.

Sciene cannot prove the past for which their is hardly any evidence. U said yourself that evolutionists have a hard time sorting out how "evolution" happened because the world is like a "book with a million pages ripped out". So, evolution is also a hypothesis. It cannot be tested.

I don't want to go into detail into every thing; i don't plan to write a thesis on "Evolution". I haven't even gotten to college yet.
BTw, what are u majoring in, jerry?

oh, and u forgot to "burn" what i said about Issac Newton, Lord Kelvin, and teh others i posted. Matthew Maury was one i forgot. He developed the science of hydrography and oceanography. He began developing "oceanography" as a result of reading Ps.8:8.

Issac Newton was definitely a creationist as is shown in the book (not by a Christian publishing company) "Newton's Philosophy of Nature: Selections from his writings", by H.S, Thayer.

I must say that on the issues of the fossil records and other controversial issues, I do not at the time have enough research under my belt to defeat your propositions. (But, God help me, i will one day. Not defeat you, though....defeat the idea of evolution and the humanistic philosophy it provides for. )

AS for now, i'm going to ask u to answer for some quotes i've compiled from evolutionists themselves on the theory of evolution. They are so deviated from evolution's proposed conclusion it seems strange that such a logical idea should have such shaky followers.

C.A. Arnold --- "AS yet we have not been able to trace the phylogenic history of a sing group of modern plants from its beginning to the present."

E.J.H Corner "... but I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation."

Paul B. Weiss --- "The first and most important steps of animal evolution remain evene more obscure than those of plant evolution."

Homer W. Smith --- "The best place to start the evolution of the vertebrates is in the imagination."

And here from some secular scholars:

Lorande Woodruff (Biology, Yale University): "We thus reach the general conclusion that, so far as observation and exp-erimentation are concerned, no form of life exists today except from pre-existing life."

Professor T.L. Moore (Physics, Univeristy of Cincinnati):
"To talk of the evolution of thought from sea slime to amoeba, and from amoeva to a self-conscious thinking man, means nothing; it is the easy solution of the thoughtless mind."
(that i think is a pretty strong comment. If after all his study in physics, Prof. Moore must have a good reason for saying "no" to evolution.)

"OTOH, I cannot miss an opportunity to express my lack of impressedness with PhDs. I just know too many. "

Why then do u quote from NASA? They are scientists with PH.D's.
What i meant, sir, was that the there are men who are creationists as well as scientists.

"evolution has nothing to do with the beginning"

ok. So then what purpose does evolution serve? (this has not yet been adressed). to simply get us from the beginning to a certain point? that sounds like scientific dispensationlism ("something happened then but doesn't happen now. why? we don't know").

TruthWarrior

12-20-2001, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by JerryLove
What, you think there should be fish that resemble amphibians? Like lungfish or mudskippers, or walking catfish (heck, catfish in general)? Lucky for me, there are.

Ah, that's pretty clever; of course it's rather easy to explain that.
what about insects?

JerryLove

12-20-2001, 07:10 PM

as are u jerry. U have not shown me why it must be 3.5 billion years. Indeed, my school science book said more than that (when i went to public school). Then a Nova video said less. I did not assume. The age of the Earth is between 4 billion and 4.6 billion (more likely the latter). The olcest life found is about 3.5 billion.

US government - http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
Talk Origins - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
University - http://www.dc.peachnet.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/age.htm

I can find a hundred more that all agree, and desribe why.

Another problem with evolution is that all evolutionists seem to have their own "pet" theories as to when and where. That isn't a problem, any more than Christians having differing ideas about age of accountability, or women in church, or stoning people who work on Saturday.

You said creationism is "not a theory, it's a hypothesis." So is evolution; u have not been able to put evolution into a laboratory and test it out. And then, u can make up strawmen to answer for that. I don't get the impression from this statement that you have the vaguest idea what a straw-man argument is. That said, the theory of evolution mady very many predictions which were tested. Some about fossils, and some about adaaption, and a great number which the later discovery of DNA proved about genetic and inherited relationships between related and descendant species.

U said yourself that evolutionists have a hard time sorting out how "evolution" happened because the world is like a "book with a million pages ripped out". So, evolution is also a hypothesis. It cannot be tested. No, I said the details of what evolved into what and when are uncertain because of a lack of fossil evidence (as fossilization is a haphazard affair). Evolution is a theory, it has been tested and proven correct.

BTw, what are u majoring in, jerry? I was a comp-sci major before I dropped out. I am currently a systems architect and martial arts instructor.

oh, and u forgot to "burn" what i said about Issac Newton, Lord Kelvin, and teh others i posted. As I mentioned, they were not palentologists, geologists, biologists, etc. What a mathematition thinks about evolution doesn't carry much weight based on the credentials. Also, I posted on every one I bothered to look up. There was no one I found that our offered that supported you beliefs. Just looking at the statistic, I see little reason to waste more time establishing in exaustiveness what a sampling has already shown. That you misrepresented by implication the beliefs of the people you offered up.

Matthew Maury was one i forgot. He developed the science of hydrography and oceanography. He began developing "oceanography" as a result of reading Ps.8:8. While I have no idea what he did or did not read. Matthew Fontaine Maury joined the Navy in 1825 out of a desire to emulate his older brither (a Naval officer). Maury produced published works on sea navigation and detailing sea journeys. He was sent to an international congress at Brussels as the United States representative. Maury's system of recording the oceanographic data of naval vessels and merchant marine ships was thereafter adopted world-wide. In 1855, he published The Physical Geography of the Sea, which is now credited as "the first textbook of modern oceanography". I find no religious references to him at all, as well as no reason to believe he would be an expert on evolution.

Since you keep bring up Newton, despite him not being involved in any of the appropriate fields of study, please feel free to cite actual support.

AS for now, i'm going to ask u to answer for some quotes i've compiled from evolutionists themselves on the theory of evolution. They are so deviated from evolution's proposed conclusion it seems strange that such a logical idea should have such shaky followers. OK, I have two problems with this. The first is you "I don't understand what you are talking about, but I will throw quotes at you anyway". If *you* have a problem with evolution, then bring it up specifically. If you found a creationist cite with someone spouting jargon about magnetic fields or radioactive decay, or stellar fuel consumption, don't put it up here unless you understand and agree with it. I am tried of hacking away at quotes from websites to people that don't understand their question, much less there answer.

The other is you assumption that if a questionble person believes something, the belief itself must neccessairily be questioned. Under your logic, the sun probibly does not come out during the day because that belief has questionable believers like Charles Manson, or Osama Bin Lauden, or whomever you wish to pull from your brain as unreliable.

C.A. Arnold --- "AS yet we have not been able to trace the phylogenic history of a sing group of modern plants from its beginning to the present." So?

E.J.H Corner "... but I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." Hardly an evolutionist huh?

Paul B. Weiss --- "The first and most important steps of animal evolution remain evene more obscure than those of plant evolution." Assuming true, so?

Homer W. Smith --- "The best place to start the evolution of the vertebrates is in the imagination." Or most anything else for that matter. Again, so?

Lorande Woodruff (Biology, Yale University): "We thus reach the general conclusion that, so far as observation and exp-erimentation are concerned, no form of life exists today except from pre-existing life." That would be the theory of evolution in a nutshell, you seem to be arguing against abiogenesis.

"To talk of the evolution of thought from sea slime to amoeba, and from amoeva to a self-conscious thinking man, means nothing; it is the easy solution of the thoughtless mind."
(that i think is a pretty strong comment. If after all his study in physics, Prof. Moore must have a good reason for saying "no" to evolution.) What makes you think that physics is somehow related to evolution? In looking him up I found this from the university of Cincinatti (where your professor works) since, you place so much importance on the petagree of the speaker, I thought I would offer a general statistic for what petagreed Americans think...

"A recent study of American scientists showed that only five percent believed in the creationist view of human origins; a majority (55%) endorsed the Darwinian position, but a large percentage (40%) also subscribed to the theistic evolutionist perspective. Since many scientists consider the controversy surrounding evolution and creationism a political issue, they are reluctant to join in the public debate, according to Bishop."

So, 95% support some form of evolution (weather initiated by a diety or not) and 5% are creationist. Since you seem to think that reality is discoverd by polls and credentials, why don't you address that?

Why then do u quote from NASA? They are scientists with PH.D's. You misrepresent my opinion. It is not that I think that people with PhDs are less capiable, it's that I know that a PhD only actuall proves that you spent 6 years in college, and not much else.

What i meant, sir, was that the there are men who are creationists as well as scientists. The 1 in 20 that are? Probibly for similar reasons to non-scientists buying into religion that offers the logically impossable.

ok. So then what purpose does evolution serve? None what-so-ever. There is no purpose. It is what it is. If you want to speculate there is a purpose, fine, but that changes nothing.

JerryLove

12-20-2001, 07:12 PM

Ah, that's pretty clever; of course it's rather easy to explain that. Oh, you mean I now need to discover small legged crustations capable of leaving the water. I don't know what most any of them are called (except for the many crabs that do so) but I see plenty on the rocky shores. Guess that was easy too.

TruthWarrior

12-20-2001, 11:35 PM

ok. Jerry...

I'm not going to be dishonest; you've torn my argument to shreds. I didn't put them up in the best order or the best way. i'm only seventeen, and only a high-school student; but i could have and should have done much better than that.

btw, from the way u talked about strawmen so much i took it that u meant "a attempt to sidestep a challenge in an argument." If i'm wrong, plz enlighten me.

Call me stupid, a fool, a human farce; I cling to Christ regardless. I've but only lost sight of Him before and I've never known such a empty, meaningless existence as that; i soon returned to Him.

however...

I'll never forget this day when I failed to stand appropriately for the Truth. I'll never again be so lazy as i have been in my studies....or in my prayer.
I pray that God brings along someone greater than I to stand for His Truth.

Until then, I won't go quietly. I'm going to study, i'm going to pray, i'm going to read until the day comes when I see how to defend the Truth.

I'm going to think, think, think, until it hurts. I"m going to find the Truth, which will ultimately glorify God.

I'd like to propose that you post a post on WHY evolution is THE theory/hypothesis of the origin of man. Just put it concisely and. i suggest, in the same form as daOKUM did in his thread about thiestic evolution. I know i'm wearing your patience; but i"m seeking the Truth. I exhausted my reserve of arguments against evolution; now show me evolution for what it is.

Thanx for your patience, Jerry.

Travis

12-20-2001, 11:56 PM

Your argument was torn to sheds because evolution is true. It has nothing to do wih you not standing for truth, or failing God.

JerryLove

12-21-2001, 09:08 AM

btw, from the way u talked about strawmen so much i took it that u meant "a attempt to sidestep a challenge in an argument." If i'm wrong, plz enlighten me. A straw-man argument is where you first make a false charicteristic of an argument (say "and you evolutionists can't truct Carbon-14 dating for fossils") and then you attack the false claim. Since no-one carbon-dates fossils, claiming that they do is attackking a straw man. For an analogy, imagine that your gourp thought they were tougher than the group nextdoor, and to prove you were tougher, you grabbed a person not in eather group and beat him up. That would be a strawman tactic.

I'll never forget this day when I failed to stand appropriately for the Truth. I'll never again be so lazy as i have been in my studies....or in my prayer. I hope that you do so with an open mind. If a fair look at the evidence makes you believe in creation (which I don't believe it can because I don't believe the evidence supports) then wonderful; please keep your mind open and be willing to come to the (for a creationist) hard conclusion if it does not.

I'd like to propose that you post a post on WHY evolution is THE theory/hypothesis of the origin of man. That's a book in itself. You can see some of the arguments with Donny for a lot on that. Any brief history of Darwin will talk about the basics on how the theory got started.

OTOH, the shortest definition for evolution is "new species come from old ones" and the most basic evidence for that statement is that the fossil record shows a transition of old species disappearing from record and new ones appearing. While that alone *could* be explained by ideas other than evolution, Biblical creation is not one of those ideas.

TruthWarrior

12-21-2001, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by JerryLove
That's a book in itself. You can see some of the arguments with Donny for a lot on that. Any brief history of Darwin will talk about the basics on how the theory got started.

OTOH, the shortest definition for evolution is "new species come from old ones" and the most basic evidence for that statement is that the fossil record shows a transition of old species disappearing from record and new ones appearing. While that alone *could* be explained by ideas other than evolution, Biblical creation is not one of those ideas.

thankx for your honesty.

"the shortest definition for evolution is "new species come from old ones" and the most basic evidence for that statement is that the fossil record shows a transition of old species disappearing from record and new ones appearing"

I hate to be redundant (if i am being so) but, how do u explain the problems with the horses' line: the ribs of the fossils didn't go in ascending or descending order, but were helter-skelter(the first had fewer than the third, and so on).
if you have already answered this question, don't answer it again.( I don't remember anyone asking this question.)
Why haven't humans been replaced by other species?

another question:
why can't u just post the basic tennets/points of evolution like daOKUM did? If evolution you know evolution, then it should be pretty easy to do, at least its basic points/arguments. plz do. It would "open my mind" a great deal.

Another random question....

Does God have any place in evolution?

If there is not place for God in evolution, then i will have nothing to do with it, no matter how much i'm defeated in arguments on details---which it seems this whole thread has been about. Let's grasp the essentials...is God in it...no, more importantly CAN He be fit in the theory of evolution?

"I hope that you do so with an open mind. If a fair look at the evidence makes you believe in creation (which I don't believe it can because I don't believe the evidence supports) then wonderful; please keep your mind open and be willing to come to the (for a creationist) hard conclusion if it does not. "

If the basic tennets of evolution rob God of His glory and/or make Him unnecessary or leave any doubts as to His character, my mind is closed to it. Why? Because my mind is already opened to God; i must be either out or in. I choose in---in God that is.

ps....what the heck does OTOH mean?lol....i've always wondered....

Travis

12-22-2001, 03:22 AM

Originally posted by TruthWarrior
ps....what the heck does OTOH mean?lol....i've always wondered....

On the other hand

JerryLove

12-22-2001, 06:52 AM

I hate to be redundant (if i am being so) but, how do u explain the problems with the horses' line: the ribs of the fossils didn't go in ascending or descending order, but were helter-skelter(the first had fewer than the third, and so on). I have not made a study of it and don't have an explanation (nor, beyond your comment here, am I aware of something to need explaining).

if you have already answered this question, don't answer it again.( I don't remember anyone asking this question.) Because they haven't. So far, Homo Sapiens has not been around very long (2,000,000 years?). Though right now, our breeding population is so diversified, it will be difficult for a new species to form from us.

why can't u just post the basic tennets/points of evolution like daOKUM did? If evolution you know evolution, then it should be pretty easy to do, at least its basic points/arguments. plz do. It would "open my mind" a great deal. Basic tennent? "Life changes over time, with new species arizing from old ones". That's evolution.

There are many facts, theorums, and laws withing the theory of evolution that describe why and how this happens. The laws of inheritence, the rules on random and induced mutation and replication error; the theory of natural selection; and a myriad of smaller ideas, but that's the basic theory.

Does God have any place in evolution? While I find no need for God in evolution (and therefore Occam's razor says "no") I also see no major problems introduced by theistic evolution (except the simple lack of support).

If there is not place for God in evolution, then i will have nothing to do with it, no matter how much i'm defeated in arguments on details---which it seems this whole thread has been about. That's interesting, but I appriciate the honesty. Why do you feel God needs to be in this process for it to be worth believing?

If the basic tennets of evolution rob God of His glory and/or make Him unnecessary or leave any doubts as to His character, my mind is closed to it. Why? Because my mind is already opened to God; i must be either out or in. I choose in---in God that is. Evolution neither supports nor refutes God, though it is incompatable with a literal belief in Genesis 1-2.

+Donny

12-22-2001, 01:46 PM

I have not made a study of it and don't have an explanation (nor, beyond your comment here, am I aware of something to need explaining).

yeah, I dont know why, but it seems that this is a much less popular topic of discussion amoung transitioal series(in my experiences), why is that?

Because they haven't. So far, Homo Sapiens has not been around very long (2,000,000 years?). Though right now, our breeding population is so diversified, it will be difficult for a new species to form from us.

I have another question about humans, why is the best transitional you have, Lucy, only 3'8" tall?

Basic tennent? "Life changes over time, with new species arizing from old ones". That's evolution.

There are many facts, theorums, and laws withing the theory of evolution that describe why and how this happens. The laws of inheritence, the rules on random and induced mutation and replication error; the theory of natural selection; and a myriad of smaller ideas, but that's the basic theory.

natural selection is the most popular mechanism for evolution, and then there is adaption and random mutation that drives it

While I find no need for God in evolution (and therefore Occam's razor says "no") I also see no major problems introduced by theistic evolution (except the simple lack of support).

well, there are problems with fitting it into the bible, but I doubt Jerry cares much about that

That's interesting, but I appriciate the honesty. Why do you feel God needs to be in this process for it to be worth believing?

well, the reason I would require a God in a scientific theory(theory, not fact) is because the bible remains errorless, therefor I choose that over any theory, but if evolution were proven, I would think otherwise

Evolution neither supports nor refutes God, though it is incompatable with a literal belief in Genesis 1-2.

Evolution implies an uncaring God, who used a process of chance and trial and error to create his special creation, not "very good" if u ask me

JerryLove

12-22-2001, 09:23 PM

yeah, I dont know why, but it seems that this is a much less popular topic of discussion amoung transitioal series(in my experiences), why is that? Having not made a study of who likes to talk about what transitional chains I would not know.

I have another question about humans, why is the best transitional you have, Lucy, only 3'8" tall? Transition from what to what?

natural selection is the most popular mechanism for evolution, and then there is adaption and random mutation that drives it That's a misrepresentation. Mutation dives change, natural selection guides it's path.

well, there are problems with fitting it into the bible, but I doubt Jerry cares much about that No, it's a very important point when considering the viability of the Bible.

well, the reason I would require a God in a scientific theory(theory, not fact) is because the bible remains errorless, therefor I choose that over any theory, but if evolution were proven, I would think otherwise You know quite well that a theory is proven. It's not a fact for the same reason that gravity isn't a fact, it's a theory too.

Evolution implies an uncaring God, who used a process of chance and trial and error to create his special creation, not "very good" if u ask me So you feel that you are qualified to judge God's works? I'll remember that.

TruthWarrior

12-22-2001, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by JerryLove
Evolution neither supports nor refutes God, though it is incompatable with a literal belief in Genesis 1-2.

+Donny

12-22-2001, 09:59 PM

Having not made a study of who likes to talk about what transitional chains I would not know.

that would be the pinpoint of boredom

Transition from what to what?

ape to man

That's a misrepresentation. Mutation dives change, natural selection guides it's path.

but without random mutation, natural selection wouldnt be there

No, it's a very important point when considering the viability of the Bible.

if evolution were proven

You know quite well that a theory is proven. It's not a fact for the same reason that gravity isn't a fact, it's a theory too.

gravity has no opposition, evolution has tons

So you feel that you are qualified to judge God's works? I'll remember that.

if they are unbiblical, yes

xGLAMROCKCHILDx

12-22-2001, 10:01 PM

To put in the varible of a supernatural being is just as scientific as taking one out. Neither are scientific cuz both are complete guesses. Anyways Darwin went around right before he died and told everyone he lied, so I don't see why no one beleives him.

JerryLove

12-22-2001, 10:05 PM

ape to man OK, how about Homo Erectus? or Neandertalis (not actually a pre-homo sapien, but a non ape, non-homo sapiens hominid that I am familiar with).

but without random mutation, natural selection wouldnt be there It would, but without genetic diversity, there would be little for it to select.

if evolution were proven It is.

gravity has no opposition, evolution has tons Opposition does not reality make. The Bible has tons of opposition, yet you claim it to be true.

TruthWarrior

12-22-2001, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by JerryLove
Evolution neither supports nor refutes God, though it is incompatable with a literal belief in Genesis 1-2.

"That's interesting, but I appriciate the honesty. Why do you feel God needs to be in this process for it to be worth believing? "

There is no meaning to life without a God. Not a "god"--those little wooden idols that primitive men as well as modern men worship (but in a different way). No not that kind of deity. I'm talking about the One Who is teh cause of all things.

This world HAD to have had a cause to begin. STephen Charnock's logic clearly (so far as I see..) explains why the world has to have God:
" It is necessary that He by whom all things are, should be before all things, and nothing before him. And if nothing e before him, he comes not from any other; and then he always was, and without beginning. He is from himself; not that he once was not, but because he hath not existence from another, and therefore of necessity he did exist from all eternity. Nothing can make itself, or bring itself into being; therefore ther must be some being which hath no cause,that depends upon no other, never was produced by any other, but was what he is from eternity, and cannot be otherwise; and is not what he is by will, but nature, necessarily existing, and always existing without any capacity or possibility ever not to be."

U see God's existence is a necessity---if man existed of himself he would have to be independent of the universe's system and thus be "infinite" and "eternal". But if he was such, why is he not the same now? Infinity never stops being infinity; it always is that: perfect, unceasing, limitless. Yet, man is very limited and cannot even control his entrance into this world, let alone his exit out. So the existence of God outside of the universe's system is essential for our existence. If you throw that out, we have no existence and therefore, no meaning or reason for life.

TruthWarrior

12-22-2001, 10:27 PM