Why I believe God Created Life.

[rusra02]

There is no "choosing" in animals and evolution.

There are however different types of of reproductive isolating mechanisms observed in fruit flies, such as gametic isolation (female eggs cannot be fertilized), ethological isolation (lack of attraction and mating), hybrid inviability (offspring are not viable) and hybrid sterility (offspring are sterile), which all lead to the same thing, e.g.re speciation.

In any case interbreeding capabilities have nothing to do with species differentiation. Many species of animal interbreed.

I agree many species of animals interbreed. However, there appear to be boundaries that as Dr. Ekkehard Lönnig stated, "cannot be transgressed." A fruit fly remains forever a fruit fly. Lönnig's conclusion? “Mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”

 

[rusra02]

"why I believe god created life"
..."because I really really want to."

...now could you start a post titled "why I find science very scary" we could continue this thread in more appropriately?

You didn't read the posts stating my reasons for believing God created life, did you? Can you name one of the reasons? Science is not scary. Propaganda in the name of science is, a little.

 

[rusra02]

Try to explain it away all you like, I'm just calling it like I see it. Quote mining is a dishonest tactic. Period. You are not exposing fallacies "that fill the theory," rather you are making a fallacious argument by misrepresenting people's words. That is the reason quote mining needs to be exposed for what it is. You are not helping yourself (or your arguments) by using such a tactic.

And by the way, Behe's "work" on irreducible complexity has been thoroughly refuted.

Evolution is one of the most well-evidenced scientific theories in existence. It explains very well the stunning variety of living organisms currently in existence. In fact, it is the only existing scientific theory that does so.

I can understand why evolutionists wince at having the many weaknesses in their theory exposed,especially by it's advocates. So why not try to get everyone to not publish such comments? 'We'll call it quote-mining! Then we can make statements like "evolution is one of the most well-evidenced scientific theories in existence" and nobody will question it! We can assert over and over our claims that "irreducible complexity has been thoroughly refuted" without having to prove what we say. Brilliant propaganda.'

 

[rusra02]

Sure, and of course the fact that they produced infertile offspring means that macro evolution has taken place. If they can not produce fertile offspring - then they are two different 'kinds' according to your definition.

One kind of fruit fly evolving into two groups of fruit fly that are no longer cross fertile IS macro evolution - acdording to your definition correct?

No,sterility shows the opposite of macro evolution, IMO. It shows the limits of variation have been reached, as in a horse and burro producing mostly sterile offspring. The fruit fly remains what it's ancestor was a million generations past, a fruit fly.

 

[rusra02]

I never said anything about existence, that is your strawman.
I said the Biblical deity can be dismissed.



Perhaps you do not understand when I say the Bible and its deity have been dismissed?

Perhaps not. Care to clarify?

 

[outhouse]

This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”


.”

No it does not.

Nor can you support it with anything credible.

 

[outhouse]

I can understand why evolutionists wince at having the many weaknesses in their theory exposed,especially by it's advocates.

.'

We wince at the complete ignorance of those who promote psuedoscience :slap:


Those who pervert reality and known credible facts, due to theistic faith.



EVOLUTION is fact, and its not going away.

It is taught in every major college around the world as higher learning.

While your view is outlawed from school children.

 

[Scimitar]

You wince at that too, so there are two things

 

[starless]

I agree many species of animals interbreed. However, there appear to be boundaries that as Dr. Ekkehard Lönnig stated, "cannot be transgressed." A fruit fly remains forever a fruit fly. Lönnig's conclusion? “Mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”

The experiment was a demonstration of the first step of speciation. We are talking about ONLY 35 generations (over a year and a half), which cannot even be compared to the evolutionary time scale (hundreds of million of years).

 

[SkepticThinker]

I can understand why evolutionists wince at having the many weaknesses in their theory exposed,especially by it's advocates. So why not try to get everyone to not publish such comments? 'We'll call it quote-mining! Then we can make statements like "evolution is one of the most well-evidenced scientific theories in existence" and nobody will question it! We can assert over and over our claims that "irreducible complexity has been thoroughly refuted" without having to prove what we say. Brilliant propaganda.'

You haven't exposed any weakness in the solid scientific theory that is evolution, as far as I can see. The only weakness I see you exposing is your own.

I say that evolution is one of the most well evidenced scientific theories in existence because it IS. Biology as well as many other fields of science don't even make sense without it. All independent research carried out over the last 150+ years (at least) in practically every field of science converge on the conclusion that evolution is a fact of life. All predictions made using the theory have been substantiated. Any person can verify this for themselves by viewing the evidence. No propaganda required. Facts are facts.

Or you can just attempt to quote random individuals and waste your time instead.

 

[Bunyip]

No,sterility shows the opposite of macro evolution, IMO. It shows the limits of variation have been reached, as in a horse and burro producing mostly sterile offspring. The fruit fly remains what it's ancestor was a million generations past, a fruit fly.

You are just being dishonest. I'm interested in debate, not giving you a paltform for your propoganda.

Neither species in the example are sterile. You are well aware of that and are just deliberately obfuscating.

The two species are no longer cross fertile, that being the boundary for macro evolution that you set.

Sure a horses and a burro produce mostly sterile offspring - but that is not a limit to either horse or burro evolution - horses and burro remain fertile, just not cross fertile.

Sadly as is so often the case you refuse to engage honestly.

 

[rusra02]

You are just being dishonest. I'm interested in debate, not giving you a paltform for your propoganda.

Neither species in the example are sterile. You are well aware of that and are just deliberately obfuscating.

The two species are no longer cross fertile, that being the boundary for macro evolution that you set.

Sure a horses and a burro produce mostly sterile offspring - but that is not a limit to either horse or burro evolution - horses and burro remain fertile, just not cross fertile.

Sadly as is so often the case you refuse to engage honestly.

Their offspring are sterile, as you yourself said. And their parents can cross-breed, showing they are cross-fertile. So, who is dishonest here?

 

[rusra02]

No it does not.

Nor can you support it with anything credible.

Your argument is with Dr. Lönnig, biologist and geneticist, who wrote those words. Anything that doesn't support evolutionist's world view is considered incredible to them, I think.

 

[rusra02]

You haven't exposed any weakness in the solid scientific theory that is evolution, as far as I can see. The only weakness I see you exposing is your own.

I say that evolution is one of the most well evidenced scientific theories in existence because it IS. Biology as well as many other fields of science don't even make sense without it. All independent research carried out over the last 150+ years (at least) in practically every field of science converge on the conclusion that evolution is a fact of life. All predictions made using the theory have been substantiated. Any person can verify this for themselves by viewing the evidence. No propaganda required. Facts are facts.

Or you can just attempt to quote random individuals and waste your time instead.

Your glib dismissal of scientists and others who examine the evidence, do their research, and publish their findings concerning the gaping holes in evolution "evidence" will not change the facts. I do agree people need to examine the evidence for themselves. I am glad you suggested this. Or did you mean just swallow the ToE kool-aid and ignore those who scientists and millions of others who reject the theory?

 

[starless]

You are delusional. There are virtually no modern scientists who reject evolution.

"An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2] Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design[2] and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.[3] Additionally, US courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases such as Edwards v. Aguillard, Hendren v. Campbell, McLean v. Arkansas and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District."

Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And I don't really care about your creationist pseudo-scientists, scientists in the 19th century, or misquotations.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are delusional. There are virtually no modern scientists who reject evolution.

"An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2] Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design[2] and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.[3] Additionally, US courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases such as Edwards v. Aguillard, Hendren v. Campbell, McLean v. Arkansas and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District."

Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And I don't really care about your creationist pseudo-scientists, scientists in the 19th century, or misquotations.

This ^^^

 

[Bunyip]

Their offspring are sterile, as you yourself said. And their parents can cross-breed, showing they are cross-fertile. So, who is dishonest here?

Well you of course.

YOU defined macro evolution as when a 'kind' diversifies into 2 'kinds' that are no longer cross fertile.

Horses and Burro are descended from the same ancestral 'kind' and are no longer cross fertile. So that in itself is exactly the example of macro evolution you deny exists.

If the offspring of two different animals are sterile, then ACCORDING TO YOUR DEFINITION they are two different 'kinds' of animal. So in the given exampke of the fruit fly, if two different fruit fly are not cross fertile THEN ACCORDING TO YOUR DEFINITION THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT KINDS.

 

[rusra02]

Well you of course.

YOU defined macro evolution as when a 'kind' diversifies into 2 'kinds' that are no longer cross fertile.

Horses and Burro are descended from the same ancestral 'kind' and are no longer cross fertile. So that in itself is exactly the example of macro evolution you deny exists.

If the offspring of two different animals are sterile, then ACCORDING TO YOUR DEFINITION they are two different 'kinds' of animal. So in the given exampke of the fruit fly, if two different fruit fly are not cross fertile THEN ACCORDING TO YOUR DEFINITION THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT KINDS.

Firstly, I did not define macro evolution, as you claim. Quote: "The Biblical “kinds” seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary between “kinds” is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur." The horse and donkey are cross-fertile, able to produce offspring. Their offspring the mule usually is sterile.
The fruit flies also can crossbreed, but produce sterile offspring. Same thing.

 

[rusra02]

You are delusional. There are virtually no modern scientists who reject evolution.

"An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2] Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design[2] and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.[3] Additionally, US courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases such as Edwards v. Aguillard, Hendren v. Campbell, McLean v. Arkansas and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District."

Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And I don't really care about your creationist pseudo-scientists, scientists in the 19th century, or misquotations.

Anyone with access to the Internet can research this for themselves and decide whether "There are virtually no modern scientists who reject evolution." And calling credentialed scientists who disagree with the ToE names will not change the facts. Such ridicule and bullying tactics doubtless does serve to keep many scientists toeing the evolutionary line, however. How like the Pharisees of Jesus day. Unable to refute his teachings, they claimed that "Not one of the rulers or of the Pharisees has put faith in him, has he? *But this crowd who do not know the Law are accursed people.” Their claim that none of the rulers or Pharisees put faith in Jesus was demonstrably false. John 12:42 reports "All the same, many even of the rulers actually put faith in him, but they would not acknowledge him because of the Pharisees, so that they would not be expelled from the synagogue;" I think it is similar with scientists who have honest doubts about the ToE but fear being expelled from the scientific synagogue. Hey, isn't there a documentary titled "Expelled" about this?

 

[starless]

Anyone with access to the Internet can research this for themselves and decide whether "There are virtually no modern scientists who reject evolution." And calling credentialed scientists who disagree with the ToE names will not change the facts.

Where are they?

Tell me the name of a credible scientist who doesn't accept evolution? There are scientists who are deists, or even theists, but I challenge you to give me one who doesn't accept evolution.