Jump to content


Photo

A Challenge To Evolutionists.


  • Please log in to reply
123 replies to this topic

#81 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 13 February 2011 - 08:50 PM

I recall folk being banned for pointing out that your mods' use of "adaptation" equates to small-scale evolutionary change. 

Hmmm.... I must be in trouble then. I suggest you read the rules and FAQs again, because you really seem to not understand them.

Evolution with a lower case e is a fact because we see speciation occur. We see changes in the genetics and forms of populations. We see natural selection. Creationists agree that this occurs and supports the Biblical account of creation and the worldwide flood.

The Theory of Evolution with a capital E encompasses changes that we have not seen happen. It encompasses Universal Common Descent... which is not proven.

The problem with species changing into another species is that the whole taxonomical system is bunk. It makes no sense that a Great Dane and a Teacup poodle are the same species but a Marine Iguana and a Green Iguana aren't. There are many examples of animals classified into different species that should not be. So when we say that "speciation" occurs... well... it is a far cry from the changes needed to make a lizard from a sea squirt.

#82 LongHotFebruary

LongHotFebruary

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 46 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New South Wales

Posted 13 February 2011 - 09:03 PM

The Theory of Evolution with a capital E encompasses changes that we have not seen happen. It encompasses Universal Common Descent... which is not proven.


Long-term evolution is not proven (or observable), but heavily supported by the usual lines of evidence.

The problem with species changing into another species is that the whole taxonomical system is bunk. It makes no sense that a Great Dane and a Teacup poodle are the same species but a Marine Iguana and a Green Iguana aren't. There are many examples of animals classified into different species that should not be. So when we say that "speciation" occurs... well... it is a far cry from the changes needed to make a lizard from a sea squirt.

View Post


A Great Dane can breed with a German Shepherd which can breed with a labrador....down to poodles. There is thus a possible gene flow. There can be no flow between populations isolated by geography, mating ritual, habitat etc.

But, yes, speciation is a grey area in terms of ring species...

#83 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 14 February 2011 - 03:32 AM

I recall folk being banned for pointing out that your mods' use of "adaptation" equates to small-scale evolutionary change.  Change in allele frequency due to natural selection acting upon new genetic material is the mechanism that biologists propose allows change to happen at all over generations and it is informative to read where it has been observed.  No one would claim the processes of long-term change can be observed because they are long-term; however, the observable traces of such change are well documented.

View Post


I find it funny how such actions seem to go through the evo grapevine. You sure you are not a resign up from being banned or from a atheist group sign up from another forum?

Also, if you are going to derail the thread with your complaints about how your buddies were treated. You may end up like them for wasting our time with such things. So it's your choice to get back on subject or.....

#84 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 14 February 2011 - 03:56 AM

Re wings: don't some animals have the ability to glide using basic flaps under the arms?  The first step of a proto-wing could plausibly have been a parachute-like protection for a tree-dweller.


The problem with your assumption is the difference in complexity between the parachute and the wing. And there are no complete steps in between

The TOE is a tested theory, more than a hypothesis.  It is tested by observation every time a genome is sequenced and every time a specemin is found in a specific geological layer.

View Post


What you imply here is an empirical type theory. Because anything observable is also testable. Which means there should be 100's of processes that meet the criteria of being empirical. Which by flow chart means would be like this:

Evidence - observable process - conclusion from the two.

But what we find more often than not is:

Evidence - NO observable process - conclusion.

It's like the Geological Column:

Evidence (layers, fossils and dating) - No observable process - conclusion.

That's not empirical evidence based on a testable and observable process. Because when the process cannot be observed, the blanks have to be filled in with imagination.

Like the mechanisms for evolution. Like Abiogenesis.

1) The object was to make live matter from dead matter. Goal was not reached.
2) The other object was to make the building blocks for life (Amino acids). Only 70% of the needed amino acids were made, where did the other 30% come from?
3) Until this day science has not proven that dead matter can come to life.

Without life coming into being naturally, evolution cannot happen in the way claimed.

And I can show you how over 90% of evolution fits into this category because almost every claimed process falls short. A theory that is less than 10% empirical is not a scientific theory. At best it;s still just a theory. Besides, can you tell us the actual find that put evolution over the top into becoming a scientific theory? Nope, because it was just decided one day to do it.

#85 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 14 February 2011 - 06:18 AM

I recall folk being banned for pointing out that your mods' use of "adaptation" equates to small-scale evolutionary change.  Change in allele frequency due to natural selection acting upon new genetic material is the mechanism that biologists propose allows change to happen at all over generations and it is informative to read where it has been observed.  No one would claim the processes of long-term change can be observed because they are long-term; however, the observable traces of such change are well documented.
***MOD HAT***
A cursory reading of the forum rules at: http://www.evolution...forum_rules.htm
Paying special attention to "Complaining about board moderation" especially with no evidence to support your fallacious assertions.

View Post


Can you please provide evidence for this? Accusations like these need to be backed up with fact, or renounced by the one who originates the blatant and unsubstantiated misrepresentation.

#86 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 14 February 2011 - 06:22 AM

Re wings: don't some animals have the ability to glide using basic flaps under the arms?  The first step of a proto-wing could plausibly have been a parachute-like protection for a tree-dweller.

View Post


No... Gliding is not flying. And, plausibility is not fact, its guessing, presupposing and "a priori" opining.

#87 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 14 February 2011 - 07:35 AM

A Great Dane can breed with a German Shepherd which can breed with a labrador....down to poodles.

View Post

Hmmmm... I still see no difference between breeds and species.

#88 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 14 February 2011 - 07:45 AM

Long-term evolution is not proven (or observable), but heavily supported by the usual lines of evidence.

View Post


Yes, heavily supported by evolutionists. That's not science, that's a belief system.

A Great Dane can breed with a German Shepherd which can breed with a labrador....down to poodles.

View Post


And yet they all remain dogs... Period... No evolution involved or required; nothing more than "adaptation within a kind/species.


But, yes, speciation is a grey area in terms of ring species...

View Post


No, the only "gray area" is in the imaginations of evolutionists.

#89 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 14 February 2011 - 08:18 AM

The above can be done. Indeed, the fact that the above can be done is the reason why I posted the challenge of A-B-C regarding fossils. Though not possible in all circumstances (there are doubtless gaps), in a large proportion of cases the "B" fossil is closer to A or C than are many breeds of dogs to one another. That fact alone would actually be enough to convince me of the truth of evolution, but to be honest I actually consider the fossil record superfluous to requirements given genetic evidence.

I have a major problem with this post. 1. If God created original kinds of animals that then had a great deal of genetic variety and natural selection worked on the populations... doesn't the same evidence support this? 2. Genetic evidence... I have yet to see examples of mutations result in new useful information in the genome.

The E. Coli experiment added nothing new. It merely turned on a switch to instructions that already existed.

#90 Seek123

Seek123

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Interests:God<br />Music (I play piano, violin, guitar, and bass guitar)<br />Nature and camping (I have achieved my Eagle Scout Rank)<br />Reading<br />Friends<br />Biology<br />Much much more...
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Northwest Indiana

Posted 14 February 2011 - 10:42 AM

I have a major problem with this post. 1. If God created original kinds of animals that then had a great deal of genetic variety and natural selection worked on the populations... doesn't the same evidence support this? 2. Genetic evidence... I have yet to see examples of mutations result in new useful information in the genome.

The E. Coli experiment added nothing new. It merely turned on a switch to instructions that already existed.

View Post


I think much of the problem, is that most evolutionists don't realize that creationism is essentially the same thing as the TOE minus the extrapolation. There is a large misconception that creationists think life remains static.

#91 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 14 February 2011 - 10:59 AM

I think much of the problem, is that most evolutionists don't realize that creationism is essentially the same thing as the TOE minus the extrapolation.  There is a large misconception that creationists think life remains static.

View Post

Posted ImageTotally agree! Perfect.

#92 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 14 February 2011 - 01:33 PM

LongHotFebruary, you are coming off as more of an atheist on me in light of these discussions.

Let me break it down for you:

1. No novel information arises on the genome, this is a huge problem for atheistic evolution. There was a paper that was published in December 22, 2010 that demonstrates this. The paper in the scientific journal is titled "Complexity." Division happens and mutations can happen on the copy, but mutations stem from rearranging DNA or losing genes. It begs the question, how did the information get there in the first place?

2. Dogs will always produce dogs. Dog breeders rely on this concept on a daily basis. I'd like to add that speciation is acknowledged in The Bible several times.

3. There is no evidence for evolution beyond speciation beyond dead animals and secular scientist's highly vivid imaginations.

4. Some may say that changing genus would be proof of evolution, I would like to point out that humans developed the concept of taxonomy, not God. God only uses the word "miyn"(Pronounced "meen") which means "Kind." Kind appears to be defined by any animal that can interbreed when taken into Biblical Context. We can try to draw conclusions beyond that, but that is leaning on our own understanding.

I could go on, but I'll stop here. Sorry if I mischaracterized your beliefs, but I'm not sure why any Christian would want to defend evolution to the extent that you are trying to.

Mamaelephant,

I believe that the E. Coli experiment where E. Coli was shown to be able to feed off of lactose in certain environments was actually due to a loss of two genes. This actually isn't good for those who believe in the full extent of Evolution.

#93 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 14 February 2011 - 03:37 PM

I think much of the problem, is that most evolutionists don't realize that creationism is essentially the same thing as the TOE minus the extrapolation.  There is a large misconception that creationists think life remains static.

View Post


No one thinks life remains static. We are designed with the innate ability to adapt to our surroundings. That is in no way supportive of macro-evolution, nor is there any evidence adduced for macro-evolution. It's called adaptation "within" a kind/species. The extrapolation is evolutionists attempt to promulgate macro from "adaptation within a kind/species".

#94 LongHotFebruary

LongHotFebruary

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 46 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New South Wales

Posted 14 February 2011 - 05:23 PM

Can you please provide evidence for this? Accusations like these need to be backed up with fact, or renounced by the one who originates the blatant and unsubstantiated misrepresentation.

View Post


Jason78 and Scanman came out with intelligent point after intelligent point but apparently got banned for disagreeing with a creationist.

On page 2 of this post (on page 4 of the creation v evolution forum) someone does seem to get banned for equating adaptation with small-scale evolution: http://www.evolution...opic=3724&st=20

#95 LongHotFebruary

LongHotFebruary

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 46 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New South Wales

Posted 14 February 2011 - 05:29 PM

LongHotFebruary, you are coming off as more of an atheist on me in light of these discussions.... Sorry if I mischaracterized your beliefs, but I'm not sure why any Christian would want to defend evolution to the extent that you are trying to.

View Post


I have an intuitive belief in a sort of deistic first cause behind Big Bang. I think there is some good stuff in the NT like the sermon in the field and the sermon on the mount but I don't think of myself as a Christian.

#96 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 14 February 2011 - 07:15 PM

Jason78 and Scanman came out with intelligent point after intelligent point but apparently got banned for disagreeing with a creationist.

On page 2 of this post (on page 4 of the creation v evolution forum) someone does seem to get banned for equating adaptation with small-scale evolution:  http://www.evolution...opic=3724&st=20

View Post


Really??? Apparently got banned for disagreeing?? Your use of vague references and innuendos to support your accusations isn't becoming. Nor is it an honest tact to be using.

What "intelligent point after intelligent point" did Jason78 and Scanman come out with that got them banned? Can you provide the evidence to support your accusations?


Also, are you aware of your arguing and complaining about board moderating?

#97 Seek123

Seek123

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Interests:God<br />Music (I play piano, violin, guitar, and bass guitar)<br />Nature and camping (I have achieved my Eagle Scout Rank)<br />Reading<br />Friends<br />Biology<br />Much much more...
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Northwest Indiana

Posted 14 February 2011 - 08:09 PM

A question for you. Do you believe all the animals alive today were created pre The Ark or if you like all the animals alive today were those that existed when the flood ended.

View Post


This is the way I've interpreted it thus far. Loosely following the contemporary methods of phylogeny, I would say that if we knew there were an original 6000 (pure speculation) kinds, there should be 6000 models of phylogenetic trees, and those trees grew and diversified within the original kinds, pre-flood. At the time of the flood, God choose one of the variations within each of the 6000 phylogenetic trees, made by each kind, that He knew would be able to survive the conditions of the flood as well as the post-flood environment. Each of those variations are the start of the "new world original kinds", so to speak.

#98 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 14 February 2011 - 09:22 PM

I have an intuitive belief in a sort of deistic first cause behind Big Bang.  I think there is some good stuff in the NT like the sermon in the field and the sermon on the mount but I don't think of myself as a Christian.

View Post

Ah, so that is the difference between theistic evolution and old earth creationist. o_O I always thought they were the same thing.

#99 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 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 Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 14 February 2011 - 11:07 PM

Fine, I'll make this my last post in this forum then, noting that your continued equivocation of macro-evolution is one of the primary reasons you can't understand why you are incorrect about evolutionary theory. The very fact that labeling such facts about reality as precisely what they are is considered a breach of the forum rules here is sufficient evidence of willing ignorance, and so I shall move along to pastures new. PZ Myers wouldn't decline to debate because he couldn't win, he'd decline to debate because it's the equivalent of a professor of geography arguing with a flat earther. Utterly pointless.

View Post


Posted Image

#100 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 February 2011 - 04:03 AM


Posted Image

View Post

Why should those external parts of the eye not have had earlier different functions to their function today?

View Post

Why should it? In fact; provide actual evidence that it does, or admit you are doing nothing more than merely guessing, and presupposing, in order to afford a semblance of credibility to your evolutionistic world-view .




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users