Jump to content


Photo

Hello, Question


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 TempestTossed

TempestTossed

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 303 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, WA

Posted 28 May 2007 - 05:30 PM

This is my first post. :)

When I registered, I saw this warning:

Warning to evolutionists: The Creation vs Evolution Forum is intended to debate the question, "Does all life originate from a common ancestor?". If you are one of those evolutionists who puts forth examples of micro-evolution (something everyone agrees occurs) and claim they prove "evolution", then this forum is not for you. Please see my article "The Evolution Definition Shell Game" that adresses this intellectually dishonest equivocation.

So what if I were to attempt and fail to make a case that only primates share a common ancestor? Or just mammals? Or just tetrapods? I ask because I am pretty sure it can't be done for all life on Earth, at least not without the same degree of confidence as I think the evidence shows on smaller scales.

#2 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 28 May 2007 - 08:31 PM

You will have to wait until Fred Williams, owner of forum, is able to come here to explain this. He usually is on the forum once a day. Some times twice. And because of his busy schedule, he some times is not on at all for a couple of days. I'll pm him about this post.

#3 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 May 2007 - 02:41 AM

This is my first post. :)

When I registered, I saw this warning:

So what if I were to attempt and fail to make a case that only primates share a common ancestor?  Or just mammals?  Or just tetrapods?  I ask because I am pretty sure it can't be done for all life on Earth, at least not without the same degree of confidence as I think the evidence shows on smaller scales.

View Post


I believe the primary motivation behind that statement is to prevent people from wasting time by equivocating over what evolution is.

This is a debate of origins and evolution posits a common ancestor for all of life.

Terry

#4 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2479 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 29 May 2007 - 06:40 AM

I believe the primary motivation behind that statement is to prevent people from wasting time by equivocating over what evolution is. 

This is a debate of origins and evolution posits a common ancestor for all of life.

Terry

View Post


That's correct. The purpose is to avoid people who come in here and say "evolution is simply ‘change’; since we see ‘change’, we win!!" Everyone agrees “change” occurs, but does change extend beyond small-scale adaptation that we can observe, to large scale change such as men and simians, vertebrates and invertebrates, dinosaurs and birds, men and bananas, sharing a common ancestor? We are not asking evolutionist to prove every ancestral relationship. Just proving one large-scale relationship would be all that is needed to falsify creation.

So the bottom line is that we debate large scale change, things like apes and humans allegedly sharing a common ancestor. We do not debate things like finches changing into finches. :)

Fred

#5 TempestTossed

TempestTossed

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 303 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, WA

Posted 29 May 2007 - 07:31 PM

That's correct. The purpose is to avoid people who come in here and say "evolution is simply ‘change’; since we see ‘change’, we win!!" Everyone agrees “change” occurs, but does change extend beyond small-scale adaptation that we can observe, to large scale change such as men and simians, vertebrates and invertebrates, dinosaurs and birds, men and bananas, sharing a common ancestor? We are not asking evolutionist to prove every ancestral relationship. Just proving one large-scale relationship would be all that is needed to falsify creation.

So the bottom line is that we debate large scale change, things like apes and humans allegedly sharing a common ancestor. We do not debate things like finches changing into finches. :)

Fred

View Post

Thank you, sir, I am glad you cleared that up. I will make those small-scale attempts then. :)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users