Creation vs. Evolution

[chair]

:darwinsm:

Is this seriously what you consider a challenge?

:yawn:...

It is a simple question, which you won't or can't answer. The "kinds" theory does not have a Biblical basis. It is made up in order to respond to what modern Biology has to say about the history of living creatures.

 

[Stripe]

The "kinds" theory does not have a Biblical basis.

:darwinsm:

We can safely ignore anything you have to say about the Bible after a ridiculous statement like that.

 

[Stripe]

Abel was a shepherd, one generation after creation. Abraham and his family were shepherds, about 1500 years later. Moses was a shepherd around 1200 BCE. They are all described as herding sheep with the same Hebrew word. At what point did the "sheep-kind" become sheep as we know them today? Did Abel herd "sheep-kind",and Moses something else?

Abel, Abraham and Moses all called sheep by the same name, therefore ... something. :rotfl:

 

[chair]

:darwinsm:

We can safely ignore anything you have to say about the Bible after a ridiculous statement like that.

Another bull-bagel, cow pattie, zero content answer.
Here's the challenge: Show us the Biblical evidence for the "kinds theory". There . A real Challenge. Clearly stated.

 

[Tyrathca]

:darwinsm:Are you being deliberately dense? I would fully conceded that the authors meant what they wrote. That they wrote "nonrandom mutations" and might mean something other than "nonrandom mutations" is a complete non-issue. If I raised it in error, I take it back.

However, you've shown nothing other than your contrariness to show they did mean "rates."

Yes those silly scientists saying things in a peer reviewed journal while expecting their readers understand the topic and their sources. Can't they for once think of the poor little creationists whose attention span fades after the first paragraph? To borrow one of your regular canned lines (emoji and all) "You should try reading. :up:"

Nope. My challenge stood without any reference to the paper. You should try understanding what I say instead of demanding that it must be wrong.

And as ever predictable Stripe. Forever claiming he said something clearly and eloquently in the past if only someone could find it....

Can you hold my beere?

I thought you were an English teacher? You do realise breathe is just a verb of breath? Big whoop I used the verb when I should have used noun..... aren't you clever

So, which is it? Random or predictable?

Awwwww....... aren't you adorable. Is the concept that something can have both a degree of randomness and still be in some way predictable too big for your little brain? Word of advice stay waaaaaaaay clear of quantum mechanics then... or anything to do with predictive algorithms (no job at google for you!)... pretty useless as a researcher for antiretrovirals too....

 

[Cross Reference]

Evidence speaks for itself. Plain and simple. Evolutionism is as water bottle with a hole in it. Why that isn't understood is based upon hatred for God. That too, is plain and simple to understand.

Why continue to argue against bummed out reasoning by people who hate God without reason Who they know gave them life. Evidence reveals it to them.

 

[Stripe]

Another bull-bagel, cow pattie, zero content answer. Here's the challenge: Show us the Biblical evidence for the "kinds theory". There . A real Challenge. Clearly stated.

You want evidence that the Bible talks about kinds? :AMR:

This "challenge" is not clear at all. The Bible talks about kinds — you know this. We have a definition of kind based on what is made clear in scripture — you know this as well.

What is the challenge? To change your mind?

:think:

You win. :chuckle:

Yes those silly scientists saying things in a peer reviewed journal while expecting their readers understand the topic and their sources.

Don't be dense.

Can't they for once think of the poor little creationists whose attention span fades after the first paragraph?

:yawn:

And as ever predictable Stripe. Forever claiming he said something clearly and eloquently in the past if only someone could find it.

Challenge. Predictions. They're there. You seem to hate that fact, preferring to pretend they do not exist.

I thought you were an English teacher?

Shows what you know.

Is the concept that something can have both a degree of randomness and still be in some way predictable too big for your little brain?

That's like saying someone can be not alive, but still have a degree of life. It's nonsense designed to insulate a conversation from rational progression.

Word of advice stay waaaaaaaay clear of quantum mechanics then... or anything to do with predictive algorithms (no job at google for you!)... pretty useless as a researcher for antiretrovirals too....

Too late. We've already shown Einstein to be way off track and those fields completely open to sensible descriptions.

However, you are just using all these things to stay away from the challenge and the predictions.

Darwinists hate science.

 

[Cross Reference]

Darwinism is the worship of "nothing" that 'theorized' something into being to be believed upon that cannot be defined by science; is not in the realm of science to perform it...

 

[6days]

And yet the authors have no issues with calling what they saw evolution.

Sure..... evolutionists love to use the word evolution. Its sort of like little kids in Sunday School. They think the answer to every queation is "Jesus".

Ty....... you may not know this but 'evolution' is mostly a meaningless term. The word is used to describe new technologies....mutation rates.....music styles....common ancestry beliefs.....thought processes and much more.

Why do evolutionists love using a mostly meaningless 'word'? Why do they equivocate with the word? Often, they use the word referring to observable adaptation and in the next sentence use it referring to their belief system. IOW...its sort of like a shell game used to sell their beliefs.

Now... read your article again. Is their more specific terms...more scientific words they could use rather than the catch-all word of 'evolution'?

 

[6days]

At what point did the "sheep-kind" become sheep as we know them today?

Gen. 1:25-31

 

[6days]

Like it or not they quite clearly are talking about an increased number of gene duplications triggered by stress (glucose restriction)

We can't be positive, but it does seem like a programmed, or a designed response.
Also...its interesting that mutations can duplicate existing genes, but it woUld be impossible for them to create one.

 

[6days]

The article looked at genetic markers at neutral loci and found only small change, that is NOT the same as no genetic differences and the article in absolutely no way implied that the population changed without genetic change/mutation/natural selection.

Shock.... You mean they were not genetically identical? ... I wonder why? Ha
Ty..... There are small changes in the genome between you and me. We both have mutations unique to us. We have differences between us because of 'selection' (sexual selection and natural selection including things like our diets and climate). But... You, African pygmies, Neandertals, Inuit and me are the same 'species'

 

[Stripe]

Remember, folks, Jonahdog and Tyrathca were challenged over their mockery of the source as if that was a rational response to Rosen's challenge.

That's how these things go; the Darwinists use mockery until it becomes untenable and then start on the real nonsense.

An honest man would never dream of pretending that their ridicule toward Reader's Digest was intellectually honest and would go out of his way to right the record if called on something like that. Evolutionists? Not them. They'll double down on their dishonesty and plow on as if nothing had happened.

 

[chair]

You want evidence that the Bible talks about kinds? :AMR:

This "challenge" is not clear at all. The Bible talks about kinds — you know this. We have a definition of kind based on what is made clear in scripture — you know this as well.

The Bible does not talk about "kinds" in the sense you and others have been using it. It simply doesn't. Either explain where it does, or refer to a SPECIFIC post where it was defined and shown to be Biblical.

 

[Stripe]

The Bible does not talk about "kinds" in the sense you and others have been using it.

Sure, it does.

It simply doesn't.

Of course it does.

Either explain where it does, or refer to a SPECIFIC post where it was defined and shown to be Bilical.

How about you present our definition of kind and show how it cannot match what the Bible describes.

Hint: Abel, Abraham and Moses calling sheep "sheep" doesn't cut it. :chuckle:

 

[Jose Fly]

Jose, it certainly seemed that you were disputing that diet affects individuals.

Nope, never said that at all.

Individuals make up a population, one measures a population through individuals.

Yep. But remember, you're talking about populations adapting without evolving. Getting bad teeth because you don't brush isn't adaptation.

As per the BBC article, regardless of what they intended originally, it evidenced that populations can undergo change in a single generation from factors even including the hardness of food. If a population changes its diet, physical differences can manifest. Such as narrower jaws. Or for lizards, cecal valves.

Again, read the actual paper the news article is describing. It's all about how evolution shaped the human mandible, which means it supports my argument rather than yours.

 

[chair]

Sure, it does.
Of course it does.
How about you present our definition of kind and show how it cannot match what the Bible describes.

Hint: Abel, Abraham and Moses calling sheep "sheep" doesn't cut it. :chuckle:

Nope. Go ahead and define it. And show how it is supported by the Bible. Your theory. You explain it. You prove it.
Don't shift the burden to me.

 

[6days]

.....refer to a SPECIFIC post where it was defined and shown to be Biblical.

Ask Jose Fly. He once quoted 3 definitions we had given him over the course of time...and each definition was consistent with each other, and consistent with the way the word 'kinds' is used in Genesis.
Or... For a bit longer of a definition read molecular biologist, Georgia Purdom
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/variety-within-created-kinds/

 

[Jose Fly]

Nope.

Gee, who would have guessed Stripe and 6days would go into deny, deny, deny mode?

A predictable and repeatable example of an organism adapting to its environment. Of course your author assumes the truth of his Darwinism, so he can't see the forest for the trees.

It's exactly what you said doesn't happen. A population evolved a new trait and increased fitness due to a specific set of mutations that were selected for and became fixed in the population.

Simply put, you're wrong Stripe....very, very wrong. I know you like to think yourself infallible, but reality can be a bit harsh.

Heck, he even admits the "mutations" are "non-random."

Where? Direct quote from the paper please.

Non-random != evolution.

Wait....are you saying you believe God personally and intentionally directs each and every mutation that occurs, and has occurred over the course of history?

I want to be clear on this.

The competing paradigm is that the organisms have a mechanism to deal with a limited diet. The test between whether God is responsible for their abilities or if Darwindidit is the scientific approach:

1) Run the experiment 100 times. Prediction: The same conditions will produce the same results in the same timeframe because the changes aren't random and there is no wait on natural selection.

2) Run the experiment and allow the altered culture to revert to its previous state by reintroducing a full diet. Run the experiment again on the same batch. Repeat as necessary. Prediction: This procedure will result in the culture showing less ability to respond and eventually its death because the changes come at a cost.

Science is about testing ideas against the evidence, not asserting the truth of your religion and ignoring contrary data.

Is it impossible for God to create a population that undergoes random mutations? Also, does natural selection mean God doesn't exist?

 

[Jose Fly]

Your example supports the Biblical creation model of rapid adaptation. Notice they discuss how "quickly" the yeast adapted.

So populations evolving new traits via mutation and natural selection is part of the "Biblical creation model"? Stripe says they're not and are directly contradictory to creationism.

Also...."non-random' mutations just might be a design feature.

Where do you see non-random?