Assuming Evolution is True......

[Thief]

Oh, so it was "magic" then?

If it makes you feel better to call the will of God...'magic'....fine.

 

[rusra02]

Rusra, the reason you people have goosebumps is a part of evolution where humans lost their hair for one.

There are billions of facts that support evolution.

Including 5 mass extintion events where life evolved back.

You claiming evolution isn't true over and over again doesn't change the facts about it and that is it supported by every field of science and proven by molecular DNA studies, which proved it, after Darwin.

I do hope your "proof" of evolution is not goosebumps.

 

[rusra02]

We've already tried to explain this to you on numerous occasions. Adaptation IS Evolution. Evolution is not simply a mechanism of change. Evolution encompasses a number of "Mechanisms" and adaptation is just one of the many, many mechanisms of Evolution.

Right. So virtually any change in a living thing is 'evolution'. Let's stick to what ToE believers call macro-evolution, for clarity's sake.

Well you and the average person would be wrong. The average person is usually clueless as to how evolution works so I wouldn't put much stock in what the "average" person knows or understands. The fact of the matter is...insects that build up a resistance to pesticides pass this resistance on to subsequent generations is exactly what Evolution predicts.

The ability to adapt to surroundings is just one more proof of a wise and intelligent Creator. It is a far cry from passing on pesticide resistance to evolving into an entirely new animal or insect.

Like I said, you and the average person are ill-informed as to what Evolution says. Of course they're still insects...then again adaptation is also a subset mechanism of speciation. An organism can adapt to exterior pressures (i.e. pesticides) but remain the same species thus remaining sexually compatible with members of the same species or an organism can become a separate species due to environmental changes such as location change, and over time are no longer sexually compatible thus giving rise to a new species.

See: (Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

We've trod this path before. Evolutionists claim a finch with a bigger beak is a new "species". It is still a finch.

We've come a long way since Darwin but I see nothing wrong with the statement. We know the statement is true giving what we currently know about genetics (ex. Human/Chimp Genome).

You really haven't come a long way. Evolutionists cannot prove mutations produced all the different animals and plants on earth. Neither does the fossil record support this theory. Darwin admitted: "If numerous species...have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution." Because many new, distinct life forms appear so suddenly in the fossil record, paleontologists refer to this period as the "Cambrian Explosion." Cambrian explosion, according to one dictionary, is: "The rapid diversification of multicellular animal life around the beginning of the Cambrian Period, resulting in the appearance of almost all modern animal phyla."
To us 'average' persons, this strongly suggests that animal life appeared relatively rapidly, as the Genesis account of creation would lead one to expect. We may be average, but we're not wrong about where the evidence leads, sans the propaganda.

 

[Looncall]

You really haven't come a long way. Evolutionists cannot prove mutations produced all the different animals and plants on earth. Neither does the fossil record support this theory. Darwin admitted: "If numerous species...have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution." Because many new, distinct life forms appear so suddenly in the fossil record, paleontologists refer to this period as the "Cambrian Explosion." Cambrian explosion, according to one dictionary, is: "The rapid diversification of multicellular animal life around the beginning of the Cambrian Period, resulting in the appearance of almost all modern animal phyla."
To us 'average' persons, this strongly suggests that animal life appeared relatively rapidly, as the Genesis account of creation would lead one to expect. We may be average, but we're not wrong about where the evidence leads, sans the propaganda.

Mere ignorance. The so-called Cambrian explosion occurred over millions of years. To portray it as sudden is mistaken, or more creationist lies.

 

[rusra02]

Mere ignorance. The so-called Cambrian explosion occurred over millions of years. To portray it as sudden is mistaken, or more creationist lies.

If we were to create a timeline that represents the history of the earth, a time line that stretches the length of a soccer field, one would have to walk 7/8ths of the field to come to the Cambrian period. Now walk one step. All those different animals appear within the step you took. (thanks to The Origin of Life - Five Questions Worth Asking for this illustration.) Sounds pretty sudden to me.
No one can say with certainty how long this period was. The fact remains, life forms appear relatively rapidly in the fossil record without progenitors. Does that suggest evolution, or creation?

 

[idea]

If we were to create a timeline that represents the history of the earth, a time line that stretches the length of a soccer field, one would have to walk 7/8ths of the field to come to the Cambrian period. Now walk one step. All those different animals appear within the step you took. (thanks to The Origin of Life - Five Questions Worth Asking for this illustration.) Sounds pretty sudden to me.
No one can say with certainty how long this period was. The fact remains, life forms appear relatively rapidly in the fossil record without progenitors. Does that suggest evolution, or creation?

I like this explanation of the explosion:
[youtube]5-XWAXe4xJg[/youtube]
Origin of Life - Panspermia (2 of 3) - YouTube

I think info was supplied to the system

 

[Agnostic75]

So virtually any change in a living thing is 'evolution'. Let's stick to what ToE believers call macro-evolution, for clarity's sake.

Consider the following:

evolution, theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. The theory of evolution is one of the fundamental keystones of modern biological theory.

Naturalists, and theistic evolutionists both accept evolution, but disagree regarding the mechanisms for natural selection and mutation. Michael Behe, Ph.D., biochemistry, is a Christian, and a theistic evolutionist. Consider the following:

Michael Behe

.......both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C.......It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans.......Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” The Edge of Evolution, pp 71-2.

Do you disagree with Behe? If so, why?

Ken Miller, Ph.D., biology, is a devout Roman Catholic. He is a widely known expert on evolution, and testified at the Dover trial. He has an article on the evolution of the flagellum at The Flagellum Unspun. Do you disagree with the article? If so, why?

In your opinion, can theistic evolutionists go to heaven if they never change their minds about theistic evolution?

In your opinion, is it reasonable for people to become inerrantists if they know very little about science?

If a God created life on earth, so what? If that was the case, no one knows who he is, and what his agenda are. Do you believe that a global flood occurred? If so, if you were able to reasonably prove that a global flood occurred, you would have something worth discussing. Discussing evolution will never get you anywhere.

 

[johnhanks]

... No one can say with certainty how long this period was.

Disingenuous. No-one seriously doubts it was some tens of millions of years.

The fact remains, life forms appear relatively rapidly in the fossil record without progenitors.

Relatively rapidly, without preserved progenitors.

Does that suggest evolution, or creation?

Find me a Cambrian whale and I'll agree it suggests creation. The fact that no extant species are represented among Cambrian fossils (and nor are most extant classes, orders and families) clearly suggests evolution.

 

[rusra02]

Consider the following:



Naturalists, and theistic evolutionists both accept evolution, but disagree regarding the mechanisms for natural selection and mutation. Michael Behe, Ph.D., biochemistry, is a Christian, and a theistic evolutionist. Consider the following:



Do you disagree with Behe? If so, why?

Presumably you are referring to the quote: "both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C.......It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans"
No, I don't agree that "its hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans." To the contrary, such inability to make vitamin C is not limited to chimps and humans. Further, it is a giant leap of faith to assume:
1. That the gene is "broken" rather than designed that way for mammals who could obtain vitamin C from their diet.
2. That having a similar gene proves relationship between species. Hamsters cannot make vitamin C either, while other species of monkeys can. Even if humans and chimps were the only species to have this feature, it would not prove they sprang from a common ancestor.

Ken Miller, Ph.D., biology, is a devout Roman Catholic. He is a widely known expert on evolution, and testified at the Dover trial. He has an article on the evolution of the flagellum at The Flagellum Unspun. Do you disagree with the article? If so, why?

I haven't read the article so cannot comment.

In your opinion, can theistic evolutionists go to heaven if they never change their minds about theistic evolution?

I don't believe all good people go to heaven, but rather that most righteous ones will live forever on earth. (Psalm 37:10,11,29) Can a person be a true Christian and believe in evolution at the same time? No.

In your opinion, is it reasonable for people to become inerrantists if they know very little about science?

True Christians should be interested in truth, both religious and scientific. Do you think it reasonable for people to believe science is inerrant, and to accept as gospel truth everything they hear from scientists?

If a God created life on earth, so what? If that was the case, no one knows who he is, and what his agenda are. Do you believe that a global flood occurred? If so, if you were able to reasonably prove that a global flood occurred, you would have something worth discussing. Discussing evolution will never get you anywhere.

If a God created life on earth, this would have immense implications for us. Your statement that "no one know who he is, and what his agenda are" is simply wrong. The Bible clearly names our Creator, and clearly announces his purposes. And what sort of proof would satisfy you that the global Flood occurred? We have eyewitness testimony, and God has attested to it's truthfulness. No one has successfully disproved that the Flood occurred.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I do hope your "proof" of evolution is not goosebumps.

I do hope your "proof" of ID and/or Creationism is not magic.

 

[Agnostic75]

If a God created life on earth, so what? If that was the case, no one knows who he is, and what his agenda are. Do you believe that a global flood occurred? If so, if you were able to reasonably prove that a global flood occurred, you would have something worth discussing. Discussing evolution will never get you anywhere.

No one has successfully disproved that the Flood occurred.

Has anyone successfully proved the global flood theory? Are you implying that all theories are true unless proven false?

Glenn Morton is a Christian geophysicist, and former YEC. He was studied the global flood theory extensively. One of his many Interenet articles is at Glenn Morton's story. Please carefully read all of the article, and state what you think about it.

Are you sufficiently informed about biology, and geology, to state from an entirely scientific perspective that creationism is true, and that a global flood occurred? If you think that you are, I suggest that we conduct a test. I will ask you some relatively easy questions about biology, and geology, and you agree not to consult any scientific writings, and to reply immediately to each question. If you cannot correctly answer relatively easy questions about those fields of science, you are not in a position to claim that you understand those fields of science well enough to claim that creationism, and the global flood theory, are true from an entirely scientific perspective.

If you cannot adequately critique the article that I mentioned by Dr. Ken Miller about the evolution of the flagellum, you are not in position to oppose evolution. The evolution of the flagellum is a very important topic. It is one of Michael Behe's pet projects, and has been a hot debate topic among creationist and evolutionist experts. A big part of that issue is what some creationists call "irreducible complexity." You need to have a good understanding of irreducible complexity in order to properly critique Dr. Miller's article.

If you wish to have some public online debates with skeptics who have advanced degrees in science, I think that I can arrange that. I know of one website where a skeptic has a Ph.D. in biochemistry.

Why must the Bible be interpreted as literally as you want to interpret it?

Do you wish to discuss biblical inerrancy? If so, I will start a new thread at the General Religious Debates forum.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

So virtually any change in a living thing is 'evolution'.

Yes because Evolution is continuous and adaptation is just a mechanism of Evolution.

Let's stick to what ToE believers call macro-evolution, for clarity's sake.

Why? This isn't my position nor is it an argument I raised here.

The ability to adapt to surroundings is just one more proof of a wise and intelligent Creator.

How do we go about testing your assertion?

It is a far cry from passing on pesticide resistance to evolving into an entirely new animal or insect.

Can you show this to be fact?

We've trod this path before. Evolutionists claim a finch with a bigger beak is a new "species". It is still a finch.

That it remains to be a Finch is not what's in question when it comes to beak size. A Finch with a larger beak has evolved on that island to be able to crack open nuts or seeds that have a tough skin or shell whereas a Finch with a narrow beak is unable to do so.

The Finch with the narrow beak has evolved on that island to be able to extract worms or bugs from small holes whereas the Finch with the large beak is unable to do so. The mechanisms of Evolution here are adaptation and Natural Selection and there are other evolutionary mechanisms at play with the various species on that island when it come to sexual selection.

You really haven't come a long way. Evolutionists cannot prove mutations produced all the different animals and plants on earth.

I'm just going to chalk this one up to your ignorance of biological evolution considering we've given you the evidence on this one plenty of times already.

Neither does the fossil record support this theory. Darwin admitted: "If numerous species...have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution."

Even though you're quote-mining again I totally agree with the statement. The fact of the matter is we don't see the rise of life all at once so there is no threat to the ToE.

Because many new, distinct life forms appear so suddenly in the fossil record, paleontologists refer to this period as the "Cambrian Explosion." Cambrian explosion, according to one dictionary, is: "The rapid diversification of multicellular animal life around the beginning of the Cambrian Period, resulting in the appearance of almost all modern animal phyla."

It depends on your understanding of "rapid". Here, let's help you to understand what paleontologist mean by rapid....

The Cambrian Period
"The Cambrian Period marks an important point in the history of life on Earth; it is the time when most of the major groups of animals first appear in the fossil record. This event is sometimes called the "Cambrian Explosion," because of the relatively short time over which this diversity of forms appears."

But what do they mean by "relatively short time"?

"the Cambrian was nonetheless a time of great evolutionary innovation, with many major groups of organisms appearing within a span of only forty million years."

:sad:

To us 'average' persons, this strongly suggests that animal life appeared relatively rapidly, as the Genesis account of creation would lead one to expect. We may be average, but we're not wrong about where the evidence leads, sans the propaganda.

Actually these same Paleontologist agree with me and disagree with your interpretation of time. The Genesis accounts are useless in lieu of what we know about the natural world. I just proved this to you. If you keep insinuating you are an average person then you may need to hit the books so that you can gain an above average understanding as to how Evolution works. In my view your understanding is a little below average.

 

[Thief]

Yes because Evolution is continuous and adaptation is just a mechanism of Evolution.




Why? This isn't my position nor is it an argument I raised here.




How do we go about testing your assertion?




Can show this for a fact.




It remains to be a Finch is not what's in question when it comes to beak size. A Finch with a larger beak has evolved on that island to be able to crack open nuts or seeds that have a tough skin or shell whereas a Finch with a narrow beak is unable to do so.

The Finch with the narrow beak has evolved on that island to be able to extract worms or bugs from small holes whereas the Finch with the large beak is unable to do so. The mechanisms of Evolution here are adaptation and Natural Selection and there are other other evolutionary mechanisms at play with the various species on that island when it come to sexual selection.




I'm just going to chalk this one up to your ignorance of biological evolution considering we've given you the evidence on this one plenty of times already.




Even though you're quote-mining again I totally agree with the statement. The fact of the matter is we don't see the rise of life all at once so there is no threat to the ToE.




It depends on your understanding of "rapid". Here, let's help you to understand what paleontologist mean by rapid....

The Cambrian Period
"The Cambrian Period marks an important point in the history of life on Earth; it is the time when most of the major groups of animals first appear in the fossil record. This event is sometimes called the "Cambrian Explosion," because of the relatively short time over which this diversity of forms appears."

But what do they mean by "relatively short time"?

"the Cambrian was nonetheless a time of great evolutionary innovation, with many major groups of organisms appearing within a span of only forty million years."

:sad:




Actually these same Paleontologist agree with me and disagree with your interpretation of time. The Genesis accounts are useless in lieu of what we know about the natural world. I just proved this to you. If you keep insinuating you are an average person then you may need to hit the books so that you can gain an above average understanding as to how Evolution works. In my view your understanding is a little below average.

And you still want to discount the value of Genesis because it's not your science book?
It wasn't intended to be. That much is obvious.

Genesis is the result of the Spirit making introduction of Himself to an eighty year old man.
In turn Moses is to say again to his people....
And you actually expect accurate science dealt as we now know it?

I don't think you have what it takes to point fingers at someone else.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

And you still want to discount the value of Genesis because it's not your science book?

There's nothing scientifically valuable in Genesis.

It wasn't intended to be. That much is obvious.

This we both agree.

Genesis is the result of the Spirit making introduction of Himself to an eighty year old man.
In turn Moses is to say again to his people....
And you actually expect accurate science dealt as we now know it?

If it isn't accurate then stop portraying any of it as if it has anything to do with the accuracy of science.

I don't think you have what it takes to point fingers at someone else.

Yet you're not mentally equipped to address any of the content in my post. This much I've proven.

 

[camanintx]

We've trod this path before. Evolutionists claim a finch with a bigger beak is a new "species". It is still a finch.

You don't know much about biology, do you. What defines the different finch species is not the size of their beak but their reluctance to interbreed.

I do hope your "proof" of evolution is not goosebumps.

By itself it is only evidence. If you are looking for proof of evolution via descent with modification, you should study orthologous endogenous retroviruses.

 

[Thief]

There's nothing scientifically valuable in Genesis.



This we both agree.



If it isn't accurate then stop portraying any of it as if it has anything to do with the accuracy of science.



Yet you're not mentally equipped to address any of the content in my post. This much I've proven.

I am not stating accuracy of science in Genesis....only it's presence.
As well as the presence of God.
He was central to Genesis.
Can't take the Creator out of His creation.

(and you haven't proven anything....and I don't need to.)

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I am not stating accuracy of science in Genesis....only it's presence.

None of what you've spouted has any basis in science. The supposed creation of the sun, moon, stars, Earth, when light appeared and when plants and animals appeared is all wrong giving what we know about cosmology, geology and anthropology. All of this is before you get to the Adam and Eve myth.

As well as the presence of God.
He was central to Genesis.

A god was made to be present in mythical stories where primitive man had no answers. This is no different than creation myths before and after the biblical version.

Can't take the Creator out of His creation.

I sure can and when I do I'm actually left with factual evidence for the diversification of life on this planet.

(and you haven't proven anything....and I don't need to.)

Actually I have. You haven't even responded to anything I presented to rusra02. I wonder why....

And for the record I'm not asking you to prove anything. I just want you to back up your claims with some testable evidence otherwise it's simply your opinion.

 

[Agnostic75]

Do you believe that a global flood occurred? If so, if you were able to reasonably prove that a global flood occurred, you would have something worth discussing.

No one has successfully disproved that the Flood occurred.

Has anyone successfully proved the global flood theory? Are you implying that all theories are true unless proven false?

Glenn Morton is a Christian geophysicist, and former YEC. He was studied the global flood theory extensively. One of his many Interenet articles is at Glenn Morton's story. Please carefully read all of the article, and state what you think about it.

Are you sufficiently informed about biology, and geology, to state from an entirely scientific perspective that creationism is true, and that a global flood occurred? If you think that you are, I suggest that we conduct a test. I will ask you some relatively easy questions about biology, and geology, and you agree not to consult any scientific writings, and to reply immediately to each question. If you cannot correctly answer relatively easy questions about those fields of science, you are not in a position to claim that you understand those fields of science well enough to claim that creationism, and the global flood theory, are true from an entirely scientific perspective.

If you cannot adequately critique the article that I mentioned by Dr. Ken Miller about the evolution of the flagellum, you are not in position to oppose evolution. The evolution of the flagellum is a very important topic, and has been a hot debate topic among creationist and evolutionist experts. A big part of that issue is what some creationists call "irreducible complexity." You need to have a good understanding of irreducible complexity in order to properly critique Dr. Miller's article.

 

[johnhanks]

Presumably you are referring to the quote: "both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C.......It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans"
No, I don't agree that "its hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans." To the contrary, such inability to make vitamin C is not limited to chimps and humans. Further, it is a giant leap of faith to assume:
1. That the gene is "broken" rather than designed that way for mammals who could obtain vitamin C from their diet.

So if you were designing a cheap car without a music system you'd install a broken CD player?

2. That having a similar gene proves relationship between species. Hamsters cannot make vitamin C either, while other species of monkeys can.

The gene is broken in a different way in hamsters, but in an essentially similar way in humans, other apes and most Old World monkeys; that New World monkeys do not share the mutation is entirely consistent with their early branching off in primate evolution.

Even if humans and chimps were the only species to have this feature, it would not prove they sprang from a common ancestor.

If evolutionary theory is correct, we should expect differences in the broken gene to be minimum between humans and chimps, rather greater between humans and gorillas, greater still between humans and macaques, and so on. And guess what...?

PS - any sign of that Cambrian whale yet?

 

[Thief]

None of what you've spouted has any basis in science. The supposed creation of the sun, moon, stars, Earth, when light appeared and when plants and animals appeared is all wrong giving what we know about cosmology, geology and anthropology. All of this is before you get to the Adam and Eve myth.


A god was made to be present in mythical stories where primitive man had no answers. This is no different than creation myths before and after the biblical version.


I sure can and when I do I'm actually left with factual evidence for the diversification of life on this planet.


Actually I have. You haven't even responded to anything I presented to rusra02. I wonder why....

And for the record I'm not asking you to prove anything. I just want you to back up your claims with some testable evidence otherwise it's simply your opinion.

You're not asking me to prove....but you want me to back up claims....?
(double talk...double minded)

And I've already told you....faith needs no proving.

And your rebuttal about your sense of science need not be answered.
Read Genesis as is.
Plenty if science indicated there.

That you don't want to believe ...doesn't matter to me.