Evolution Makes No Sense

[bobabelever 1]

Bobabelever: a question, if I may, before I address your points. (I'm currently busy with Cassi, I may address your points later, but I want to stay on my current discussion for now in this thread.)

 

Remember, please, that natural selection is the WINNOWING process, it decreases variety, and never creates anything new.

 

Do you agree with Cassi that this is not natural selection?

Or do you feel that Cassi is incorrect?

58458[/snapback]

Taking the definition from dictionary.com (emphasis by me):

the process by which forms of life having traits that better enable them to adapt to specific environmental pressures, as predators, changes in climate, or competition for food or mates, will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than others of their kind, thus ensuring the perpetuation of those favorable traits in succeeding generations.

 

So the question is, "can natural selection include disease?"

My answer is, yes, "specific environmental pressures" could include disease.

 

But "natural selection" is not exclusive to [atheistic] evolution; adaptation, disease, predation - they all fit better in the creation model.

 

Again, though, the point of the OP is the nonsense of "[atheistic] evolution" as a whole, not "natural selection"!

 

******************************************************************

All this mocking of the Bible, and God, is useless. Disease is the result of the fall of man. Disease, ultimately, is the indirect result of sin. This doesn't mean that if I sin I'm guaranteed to get sick, those people that read the Bible that way are misunderstanding for sure. In other words, had man never sinned, there would not be any disease, death, etc... God has given us many very intelligent people that have found the cure for many diseases; through good science, we (humans) have conquered certain diseases - it's all part of "having dominion over..." (see my signature).

[Isabella 22]

I’ll ask a second time, since my first question was completely ignored:

 

Cassiterides, by what mechanism does sin create viruses and bacteria?

[bobabelever 1]

Actually, the number of species has gone up and down.  Just before the Permian extinction there were many, just after over 90% had gone.  By the time of the K-T extinction there were many more again, over 80% died out and now we have more again, but we are heading into another mass extinction.

58460[/snapback]

This assumes [atheistic] evolution.

[Cassiterides 1]

I’ll ask a second time, since my first question was completely ignored:

 

Cassiterides, by what mechanism does sin create viruses and bacteria?

58470[/snapback]

I don't believe in Germ theory of disease.

[Guest kingreaper]

Taking the definition from dictionary.com (emphasis by me):

the process by which forms of life having traits that better enable them to adapt to specific environmental pressures, as predators, changes in climate, or competition for food or mates, will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than others of their kind, thus ensuring the perpetuation of those favorable traits in succeeding generations.

 

So the question is, "can natural selection include disease?"

My answer is, yes, "specific environmental pressures" could include disease.

 

But "natural selection" is not exclusive to [atheistic] evolution; adaptation, disease, predation - they all fit better in the creation model.

58469[/snapback]

Indeed, natural selection is not exclusive to atheistic evolution.

And it's certainly not exclusive to the common descent model (as I often point out, the theory that evolution occurs by natural selection and mutation is distinct from, though linked to, the theory of common descent)

 

So, it appears you and I are agreed on this one issue, that natural selection DOES occur.

 

Again, though, the point of ithe OP is the nonsense of "[atheistic] evolution" as a whole, not "natural selection"!

 

I'm not currently debating the OP. I am debating Cassi.

 

Hopefully Cassi will read your post, and perhaps reconsider his/her position.

 

[snip-things-about-mocking-of-god, as I haven't been mocking god.]

[Isabella 22]

I don't believe in Germ theory of disease.

58472[/snapback]

So you believe that bacteria and viruses are not the cause of disease?

[Guest kingreaper]

I don't believe in Germ theory of disease.

58472[/snapback]

So, how do you believe antibiotics work?

 

How does immunisation work?

 

Are those things not strong evidence for the germ theory?

[Cassiterides 1]

So you believe that bacteria and viruses are not the cause of disease?

58474[/snapback]

Disease is caused by sin. I already explained. Sin is a mental state which entered the world through Adam (Romans 5: 12). Therefore sin is mental. It's not natural, it's a mental error inflicted by wrong thought and wrong doings, sin as the scripture explains is a breaking of the law.

 

People who get disease, are people who are breaking Gods laws and immoral people. That's my view, i'm sure other creationists might believe different, however all agree disease is a result of sin by the fall.

[bobabelever 1]

[snip-things-about-mocking-of-god, as I haven't been mocking god.]

58473[/snapback]

Yes, that was not meant toward you kingreaper.

[Isabella 22]

Disease is caused by sin. I already explained. Sin is a mental state which entered the world through Adam (Romans 5: 12). Therefore sin is mental. It's not natural, it's a mental error inflicted by wrong thought and wrong doings, sin as the scripture explains is a breaking of the law.

 

People who get disease, are people who are breaking Gods laws and immoral people. That's my view, i'm sure other creationists might believe different, however all agree disease is a result of sin by the fall.

58476[/snapback]

Ok. Well it just so happens that I am home sick today because I have strep throat, also known as Streptococcal pharyngitis. Streptococcus bacteria without a doubt exist: they can be seen under a microscope, and there are photos to prove it. It is also a well established fact that antibiotics kill strep bacteria. I started on antibiotics yesterday, and today I am already feeling much better. I’m not sinning any more or any less than I was three days ago, when I started to feel sick. So, out of curiosity, do you believe that it’s the strep bacteria that are making me sick or something else entirely?

[falcone 2]

People who get disease, are people who are breaking Gods laws and immoral people. That's my view, i'm sure other creationists might believe different, however all agree disease is a result of sin by the fall.

58476[/snapback]

Here's a picture of a baby with Patau's Syndrome

 

 

[Guest kingreaper]

Here's a picture of a baby with Patau's Syndrome

58480[/snapback]

Can you please keep pictures like that behind a link, with a warning, if you feel the need to post them.

 

I understand the point you're trying to make, but I don't appreciate suddenly seeing that picture any more than I appreciate pro-lifers randomly posting pictures of partial birth abortions.

[Cassiterides 1]

Here's a picture of a baby with Patau's Syndrome

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

[Cassiterides 1]

Ok. Well it just so happens that I am home sick today because I have strep throat, also known as Streptococcal pharyngitis. Streptococcus bacteria without a doubt exist: they can be seen under a microscope, and there are photos to prove it. It is also a well established fact that antibiotics kill strep bacteria. I started on antibiotics yesterday, and today I am already feeling much better. I’m not sinning any more or any less than I was three days ago, when I started to feel sick. So, out of curiosity, do you believe that it’s the strep bacteria that are making me sick or something else entirely?

58479[/snapback]

It's way offtopic to the original discussion, but as i said disease is a result of sin. Are you living a moral life following the laws of God? Your user says 'atheist', so quite clearly you aren't...

[Cassiterides 1]

Disease is the result of the fall of man.

The atheists don't understand this though.

[Guest kingreaper]

It's way offtopic to the original discussion, but as i said disease is a result of sin. Are you living a moral life following the laws of God? Your user says 'atheist', so quite clearly you aren't...

58484[/snapback]

The question isn't how you explain her getting ill. The question is how you explain the fact she's getting better.

 

How do antibiotics work if Germ theory is false?

 

 

The fact that antibiotics can cure diseases is firm evidence for germ theory. Germ theory shows that diseases are natural.

[Isabella 22]

It's way offtopic to the original discussion, but as i said disease is a result of sin. Are you living a moral life following the laws of God? Your user says 'atheist', so quite clearly you aren't...

58484[/snapback]

I am going a little off topic, but I think it’s necessary for the evolutionists here to fully understand your beliefs so that we can provide better examples for you in future debates. How are we supposed to provide evidence of natural selection if we have no idea what you consider “natural†in the first place?

[Seth 1]

Cassiterides, I am not sure of your meaning behind Natural Selection since Natural Selection is an observable occurrence. Natural Selection is simply the "result" of what happens when you have say two male deer fighting for one doe. The "result" of the fight normally goes to the stronger more fit male deer who will then pass on his genetic traits to his offspring. This natural "process" helps to insure the success of the "species" or "kind". That's really an oversimplified example but one that is easily observed. This natural occurrence called NT may help explain MICRO-evolutionary changes but does nothing to help explain MACRO-evolutionary ones.

 

Natural Selection does nothing to help in the position of "guiding", "directing" or somehow having some influence in helping evolution along. (the goo to you kind of evolution) THIS, however, is what evolutionists believe without any evidence to support the "idea" that NT does indeed contribute in this evolutionary way.

 

Here's a website that may give more clarification. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/e...on-vs-evolution

[falcone 2]

Can you please keep pictures like that behind a link, with a warning, if you feel the need to post them.

 

I understand the point you're trying to make, but I don't appreciate suddenly seeing that picture any more than I appreciate pro-lifers randomly posting pictures of partial birth abortions.

58481[/snapback]

Fair enough. Apologies for any offence caused.

[falcone 2]

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

58482[/snapback]

A quote from your own link:

Maternal impression, according to a long-discredited medical theory, was a phenomenon that explained the existence of birth defects and congenital disorders.

[Isabella 22]

A quote from your own link:

58492[/snapback]

Also, at the top of the page:

 

This article is about the obsolete theory of inheritance. For the empirically validated genetic phenomenon, see Maternal effect.

[Cassiterides 1]

I am going a little off topic, but I think it’s necessary for the evolutionists here to fully understand your beliefs so that we can provide better examples for you in future debates. How are we supposed to provide evidence of natural selection if we have no idea what you consider “natural†in the first place?

58488[/snapback]

Has nothing to do with 'my' definitions. The fact is, i repeatedly asked for you evolutionists to give evidence for your belief disease is natural and you gave none.

 

Therefore my position remains correct, no examples of observed natural selection have been provided.

[Cassiterides 1]

Cassiterides, I am not sure of your meaning behind Natural Selection since Natural Selection is an observable occurrence. Natural Selection is simply the "result" of what happens when you have say two male deer fighting for one doe. The "result" of the fight normally goes to the stronger more fit male deer who will then pass on his genetic traits to his offspring. This natural "process" helps to insure the success of the "species" or "kind".  That's really an oversimplified example but one that is easily observed. This natural occurrence called NT may help explain MICRO-evolutionary changes but does nothing to help explain MACRO-evolutionary ones.

I did ask for examples of natural selection, but none were provided. If some are i will review them. But as it stands i don't believe in natural selection, nor is there any evidence it can be observed. If there is, i asked for it to be presented, i don't mind reviewing it.

 

Here's a website that may give more clarification. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/e...on-vs-evolutiono

I have seen this before. AIG come very close to supporting many elements of evolution. I avoid going down this path, because this is how evolutionists trick you. If you accept natural selection, adaption and minor variations via speciation or mutation evolutionists then trap you and say macro is precisely this on a larger scale of time. I'm cautious not to be trapped or believe in these theories.

[Isabella 22]

Has nothing to do with 'my' definitions. The fact is, i repeatedly asked for you evolutionists to give evidence for your belief disease is natural and you gave none.

 

Therefore my position remains correct, no examples of observed natural selection have been provided.

58495[/snapback]

We’ve been trying to give you examples, but since you believe disease is caused by sin it will be impossible to change your mind.

 

I still don’t quite understand your opinion that the “germ theory†is false. The existence and danger associated with certain bacteria and viruses is not even a theory, it’s a proven and testable fact. Do you believe that viruses and bacteria simply do not exist? Or do you acknowledge their existence, but believe that are not the cause of disease? If you came down with a case of strep throat like me and the doctor prescribed you antibiotics, would you take them?

[Ron 10]

Ron, do you consider disease a part of nature?

58465[/snapback]

Absolutly... The sin nature that was brought upon us by the fall of man.

 

 

It's obviously not part of God's original design if caused by the fall, but is it now a part of nature?

58465[/snapback]

Absolutly... The sin nature that was brought upon us by the fall of man.