Creation vs. Evolution

[Mark SeaSigh]

What I actually said Mark was that one particular starfish around today does look rather like the surviving impression from the distant past.

So, are you saying that this Animal had Changed, and then Returned to the Same Animal it Once was?

What are the Odds that An animal will Gain Eyes, Loose them, and then Gain them Again; By Random Mutation by Reproduction, and Natural Selection?

How could Natural Selection allow something as Important as a New Functional Anatomical Feature, which makes the Animal More Adapted to it's Environment; to just let it Disappear?

Anatomy also includes soft tissue not just the fossilised skeleton.

AL;

When you have a Creature, such as A Starfish, Which is Supposed to Be From the Early Cambrian, and remaining Anatomically Unchanged Since; It's pretty hard to believe that it's ever been anything but a Starfish.

Now do you understand?

Or, do you need some more Examples?

Above Starfish which is Supposed to be 150+ Million years old, but for some reason, it looks just like it's modern Version. Almost like Evolution doesn't even Happen.

Modern Brittlestar.

Evolution - is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

That is the Same Animal; I mean, Come On!!!

=M=

If Evolution is Constantly Happening, Slow and Fast; Why hasn't that Brittlestar changed Appearance?

My "religion" is not simply a belief in what looks somewhat like something else therefore it is that same something else.

: D

I gather that The Barbarian will be willing to look for a transitional form of any that you care to suggest.
How long is a piece of string Dave?

I guess, Now we will See;

Urchin to Starfish, Let's Hear it Evols.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Mark,

You make more sense to me. I don't believe in evolution anyway. I believe God created every thing the exact way He wanted and He can even know the amount of hairs on your head while you are still in the womb. He creates. Any changes made are by Him only. My cat that had seven toes on two paws, and six on one paw, and five on one paw, was very special and unique to me, but it was NOT a new species. It had cancer though and had to be euthanized before her time. She was only around six years old. It was heartbreaking. She was a prized cat, as far as I am concerned. My other cat is twice that age and is fine.

God Be With Each Of You Beautiful People As You Learn From Each Other,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear DFT_Dave,

So then, you are saying that you believe in evolution, I guess. See John 1:3, "ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM; and without Him was not ANYTHING MADE that was MADE." In other words, God made everything, not ANY THING made by evolution. He has His Hand in everything that is Made. How can you not know that? Also Isaiah 45:7, "I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil (calamity?). I, the Lord, DO ALL of these things." God created Adam as a man, not as a baby. He also created the animals as aged, instead of as babies. He also created the Universe and host of Heaven, and the Sun and the Moon as aged, not as brand new. That is why I believe we cannot go beyond 8,000 years ago. Are you saying that God lied to us?? What exactly are you trying to say? If it is mixed up there, it can be mixed up throughout the Bible. I don't believe that. I happen to know that Daniel and Revelation are not mixed up, even though most people would think so. But I digress. I believe that God changes every gene, genome, DNA, RNA, atom, proton, electron, etc. that He wants to when He wants to. He is the absolute chemist. Why would He allow it to be written that He created everything in six days and rested on the seventh, if He didn't? If He says He created the host of heaven four days after He created Light, then it was a Light other than the Sun. If He says on the sixth day He created the creatures, cattle and man on the same day, who are we to argue with our Maker? How do you feel about all of this? Let me know.

Good To Have You Back!! God Bless Your Soul And Spirit!!

Michael

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dear DFT_Dave,

So then, you are saying that you believe in evolution, I guess. See John 1:3, "ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM; and without Him was not ANYTHING MADE that was MADE." In other words, God made everything, not ANY THING made by evolution. He has His Hand in everything that is Made. How can you not know that? Also Isaiah 45:7, "I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil (calamity?). I, the Lord, DO ALL of these things." God created Adam as a man, not as a baby. He also created the animals as aged, instead of as babies. He also created the Universe and host of Heaven, and the Sun and the Moon as aged, not as brand new. That is why I believe we cannot go beyond 8,000 years ago. Are you saying that God lied to us?? What exactly are you trying to say? If it is mixed up there, it can be mixed up throughout the Bible. I don't believe that. I happen to know that Daniel and Revelation are not mixed up, even though most people would think so. But I digress. I believe that God changes every gene, genome, DNA, RNA, atom, proton, electron, etc. that He wants to when He wants to. He is the absolute chemist. Why would He allow it to be written that He created everything in six days and rested on the seventh, if He didn't? If He says He created the host of heaven four days after He created Light, then it was a Light other than the Sun. If He says on the sixth day He created the creatures, cattle and man on the same day, who are we to argue with our Maker? How do you feel about all of this? Let me know.

Good To Have You Back!! God Bless Your Soul And Spirit!!

Michael

No, I want Alwight and Barbarian to answer my question.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Let's just answer my questions.

How did we go from Eldrege saying, "geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them", to we are all transitional forms?

How long does it take for a species to evolve?

If evolution is a continuous process wherever there is self replicating life?

Then is having offspring evolution even if they turn out to be just like the parents?

--Dave

 

[TracerBullet]

What are the Odds that An animal will Gain Eyes, Loose them, and then Gain them Again; By Random Mutation by Reproduction, and Natural Selection?

pretty much zero because that isn't how either mutation or natural selection operates

How could Natural Selection allow something as Important as a New Functional Anatomical Feature, which makes the Animal More Adapted to it's Environment; to just let it Disappear?

1. the environment changed
2. the animal moved to a different environment

When you have a Creature, such as A Starfish, Which is Supposed to Be From the Early Cambrian, and remaining Anatomically Unchanged Since; It's pretty hard to believe that it's ever been anything but a Starfish.

You may want to do some reading on evolution and natural selection as you don't seem to have a firm grasp of either of these concepts.

If Evolution is Constantly Happening, Slow and Fast; Why hasn't that Brittlestar changed Appearance?

Your ancient brittle star

is also the ancestor of:

and

and

and

 

[The Barbarian]

Dave presents an undocumented claim that a scientist once denied transitional groups)

Barbarian suggests:
Well, let's test that idea. Name me two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional form.

Most creationists cut and run or make a series of excuses at this point. But maybe you've got more integrity than that Do you?

(Dave cuts and runs)

One mutation can do it. All that needs to happen is a mutation that makes the new organism unable to reproduce with the older population.

The evolution of O. gigas from O. lamarckania is an example. A polyploidy event that produced a new species, complertely unable to reproduce with the old population.

Let's just answer my questions.

We've answered enough questions. Now your turn. I see you dodged my challenge to find even one case where there isn't a transitional. That says all we need to know.

How did we go from Eldrege saying, "geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them", to we are all transitional forms?

You guys have been outed on the quote-mining game. Your example is well-known
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/contents.html

But if you think Eldrege is right, it should be simple for you to find just one case without a transitional. Second chance to step up and support your case with more than a doctored "quote."

Prediction: another dodge and more excuses from Dave.

How long does it take for a species to evolve?

On mutation. O. gigas from O. lamarckania, for example.

So having offspring is evolution even if they turn out to be just like the parents?

No organism with two parents is just like the parents. Evolution is stepwise. Hence, Tibetans are genetically no longer just like Southern Chinese. A series of mutations and natural selection left them adapted to live and reproduce in areas of very low oxygen concentration.

Now, how about facing up to the question. Are you going to step up and show us that there are no transitionals, or are you going to cut and run?

Your choice.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian challenges:
Most creationists cut and run or make a series of excuses at this point. But maybe you've got more integrity than that Do you?

(Dave cuts and runs)

Some creationists Post from their Phone, and don't have the Time to waste on Barbie Girl;

And another prediction confirmed. "We'd like to deal honestly with the question, but our cell phones won't let us."

You can post all sorts of videos and "these two starfish look kinda similar, so they must be exactly the same", but you don't know how to post an honest answer on your phone, um?

Most people don't like Debating you because you use Evasive answers, and Unfounded Reasoning.

See above. I'm just really patient, and willing to use people like you as teaching tools. So neither Dave nor Mark is confident enough in their beliefs to name even one evolutionary line without a transitional.

Are there any creationists with any backbone here?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Barbarian,

Yes, I have a backbone. O. gigas from O. lamarckania is God's creation. Nothing changes without Him. He is able to make a man from dust, and cattle and creatures too, and fowl from the dust or from the waters. Should you want the Scriptural references, let me know. I won't bother for now because I don't know if you have a KJV Bible. There was no change without God's direct intervention. Not evolution's. Get it right, Barbarian. You'll find out on judgment day, now won't you? But you don't believe in that either. You are a real piece of work.

God Help You If You'd Let Him,

Michael

 

[alwight]

Let's just answer my questions.

How did we go from Eldrege saying, "geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them", to we are all transitional forms?

How long does it take for a species to evolve?

Evolution is a continuous process.

Wherever there is self replicating life.

So having offspring is evolution even if they turn out to be just like the parents?

--Dave

I seem to recall answering this with you at least once before. Eldredge was actually discussing Punctuated Equilibrium rather than questioning Darwinian evolution itself, as the topic.
He went on to say this:

What is extraordinary is that in the 120 years since Darwin appeared to have cracked the problem with elegant neatness in "The Origin of Species," the principle has withstood all attacks on it - and yet still evolves loose ends.

Evolution is not somehow forced to make changes for change sake, but will produce noticeable adaptions as and when there is a reason to, say a fairly sudden environmental change.
The potential to adapt is continuous but if a stable environment doesn't require adaption, it probably won't happen.
In geological terms evolution can appear rapid, almost a blink of an eye or in some cases little or no obvious change for long periods, but compared to human life times even a more rapid evolution is still a very gradual process.

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Barbie what a great example of;

A Fruit Fly Plant. LOL!!!!

=M=

The fruit flies can Reproduce, they are still the same Species.

Where is my Example of;

Well, let's test that idea. Name me two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional form.

Trees or Mushrooms; What do you think existed First?

Sure, Barbie; Urchin to Starfish/Brittlestar?

Or, do you just believe that those fossils just have not been found yet.

I personally hold a Like Belief, only it goes like this; We have yet to find many of the Oldest Modern Looking Fossils.

Good thing we have Examples of Every Species.

They just found a Bat that is supposed to be over 55 Million years old, and contains all the Same Bat anatomy that the Modern Bats do today; Just wait till we find the Really Old Bats. LOL!!!

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Barbie what a great example of;

A Fruit Fly Plant. LOL!!!!

Funny Joke, though.

=M=

The fruit flies can Reproduce, they are still the same Species.

Where is my Example of;

Well, let's test that idea. Name me two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional form.

Trees or Mushrooms; What do you think existed First?

Sure, Barbie; Urchin to Starfish/Brittlestar?

I already Established that Evolutionist Theorists believe that the Urchin reproduced it's way to a Starfish; Explain.

Or, do you just believe that those fossils just have not been found yet.

I personally hold a Like Belief, only it goes like this; We have yet to find many of the Oldest Modern Looking Fossils.

Good thing we have Examples of pretty much Every Species that exists in the Modern World.

They recently found a Bat that is supposed to be over 55 Million years old, and contains all the Same Bat anatomy that the Modern Bats do today; Just wait till we find the Really Old Bats. LOL!!!

========================================

Oh, and about that Starfish; Which one of those contain New Anatomical Features, that the Original Starfish Did not Contain?

pretty much zero.

Yep. Pretty Much, more Like Impossible/Unreasonable.

1. the environment changed
2. the animal moved to a different environment

Explain how that Causes Speciation, rendering a Species incapable of Interbreeding; then give an Example of it Actually Happening.

You may want to do some reading on evolution and natural selection as you don't seem to have a firm grasp of either of these concepts.

Yeah, why not you?

What a Nice Assertion/Belief; Now, Prove it.

and This One

and

You really believe that Animal below descended through Reproduction from that Starfish Above?

Explain.

I'm gonna go make some food, so I will be gone; Feel free to leave a Response.

==================================

MUSIC!!!

Distopian Dream Girl - Built to Spill (There's Nothing Wrong with Love)

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave presents an undocumented claim that a scientist once denied transitional groups)

Barbarian suggests:
Well, let's test that idea. Name me two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional form.

Most creationists cut and run or make a series of excuses at this point. But maybe you've got more integrity than that Do you?

(Dave cuts and runs)

One mutation can do it. All that needs to happen is a mutation that makes the new organism unable to reproduce with the older population.

The evolution of O. gigas from O. lamarckania is an example. A polyploidy event that produced a new species, complertely unable to reproduce with the old population.

We've answered enough questions. Now your turn. I see you dodged my challenge to find even one case where there isn't a transitional. That says all we need to know.

You guys have been outed on the quote-mining game. Your example is well-known
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/contents.html

But if you think Eldrege is right, it should be simple for you to find just one case without a transitional. Second chance to step up and support your case with more than a doctored "quote."

Prediction: another dodge and more excuses from Dave.

On mutation. O. gigas from O. lamarckania, for example.

No organism with two parents is just like the parents. Evolution is stepwise. Hence, Tibetans are genetically no longer just like Southern Chinese. A series of mutations and natural selection left them adapted to live and reproduce in areas of very low oxygen concentration.

Now, how about facing up to the question. Are you going to step up and show us that there are no transitionals, or are you going to cut and run?

Your choice.

What evolutionists call transitional in the fossil record is no different than the diversity we see today within species or families.

Just as we have never seen anything evolve, the fossil record has never recorded any thing evolving either. For all the collection of australopithecine fossils it's clear that all they ever reproduced were more australopithecines.

Gould and Eldredge were honest enough to acknowledge that gradualism is not seen "in the rocks" as Gould put it. Most creationists understood they still supported evolution, but the search for transitional forms in the fossil record came to an end and the search for gradualism in the genetic code began.

Speciation can account for the dispersion of characteristics that already exist in a gene pool, but mutations are a break down that produces "misinformation" in the genetic code.

DNA is information that doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of coming about by chance accept in irrational minds. Mutations over time become just more bits of disinformation.

Genetic information in the material world requires a non physical super natural intelligent "Informer", that would be the logical conclusion. That non intelligent matter produced non material logical thought is laughable.

--Dave

 

[MichaelCadry]

Hey Buddies,

Great job, MarkSeaSigh and DFT_Dave!!! It is evident that God is in control of any changes, not evolution or mutation. God helps each creature to adapt to their NEW surroundings by giving them the change in their bodies to survive. Not evolution, but God's doing. Everyone seems to always want to leave God out, just like they do now, when they swear in a witness, they don't say, "So help me God," and they try to take God out of the schools, government, etc. God is not thrilled and He will let this world KNOW soon enough. We founded this nation with a belief in the Almighty God. That's why He has blessed us for so very long. But now, many are turning away, so God is not going to help us much anymore. There's going to be some cataclysmic occurrences very soon, when God goes on the warpath!!

PatrickJane, you are doing fine so don't feel slighted. You're a rookie for heaven's sake. Of course it's going to take some time to get into the swing of things.

God Be With Us As We Debate And Learn,

Michael

 

[patrick jane]

i've thought about the issues you guys are talking about and how to combine the observable variations of life on earth and the massive time scale seemingly can't be denied. the 6 day creation is real. i don't do research and speak only from my perspective, but we don't know God's time scale. God does'nt wear a watch or use a calender i imagine. i don't quote scripture to prove my points (yet) or scientific documentation and i know there are scriptures that explain how long a day is to God. i also can't deny the apparent age of the observable universe. i realized that i will never be able to explain everthing so i imagine. i let go of time and believe that once God created EVERYTHING and set time in motion He allowed natural processes (physics,mathematics,speciation,etc.) to happen. i think the Bible says God breathed life into Adam. also, at the risk of being called a blasphemer i have to consider that the Bible was compiled by men (sinners). how do i know what was left out, edited, mistranslated or embelished ? i can't trust humans. i believe in all of the communications between God and man and the prophets (all Bible authors) but not all of the subsequent handlers after that. does that make sense ? i am here to learn so i like reading what you guys post. thanks

 

[patrick jane]

hey, how did you know i was on this thread ?

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Patrick Jane;

What day do you think God created the Earth?

=M=

Anybody can feel free to follow Up on what they believe on this subject, as well; But I believe that the Dirt and Water were here; Before the Six 24/Hour Days of Creation.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Great question Mark!!

Michael

 

[6days]

i can't trust humans. i believe in all of the communications between God and man and the prophets (all Bible authors) but not all of the subsequent handlers after that. does that make sense ? i am here to learn so i like reading what you guys post. thanks

Great questions. There are many ways to determine if scripture is God beathed / inspired or not.
Here is something to start.....
The Bible is a collection of 66 books written by at least 40 authors over the course of 1500+years, yet it is one continuous 'story', or account from beginning to end.
Wouldn't you agree that if such a book were written by human authors without Divine inspiration, you would find obvious errors and contradictions?
Scripture is internally consistant... beginning to end.
Scripture is externally consistent, and often proven true by archaeology.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Hey, my fellow Christian brothers. Don't you agree that God created everything 'six days apart'?? You know what I am saying. The Universe isn't much older than the cattle. Right? If the story of Creation were wrong, don't you think that Jesus would have mentioned it while He was on Earth??

God Keep You All Joyful And Content!!

Michael