Creation vs. Evolution

[6days]

Proving evolution occurs because mutations occur is like saying cities are built by nature because we can see that buildings naturally fall apart.

I never heard it explained like that... but its right on!
Sometimes a falling building can provide a shelter for animals under the rubble. I suppose that is called evidence of a new function... If enough of these 'mutations' (Earthquakes, rust, oxygenation, hurricanes) happen... we will eventually have a totally new and different 'building'. It has speciated.

 

[6days]

The "sudden" appearance in many different layers of geology is evidence that evolution has occurred over billions of years and that even a "sudden" appearance in geology is still gradual in human terms.

No..... When evolutionists say sudden appearance, they often are trying to cover the fact that they have no evidence... just beliefs.
EXAMPLE:
Dr John Patterson wrote:
The latest find shows sophisticated vision had evolved very rapidly. It came with a bang, in a geological blink of an eye
from Nature#480 p237-240 Also in Canberra Times Dec7/11
What the article is about is giant shrimp about 3' long (1 meter) dated at 515 myo by evolutionists. (Anomalocarus). These shrimp like creatures dated at more than a half billion years.

Notice what he is really saying..... THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THE EYE EVOLVED.

 

[DFT_Dave]

I want to see a transitional fossil. Not a dinosaur fossil with a feather. I want to see a fossil of an animal that is halfway between one animal and another. We see a bird with teeth and say its a dinosaur evolving into a bird. No. It's a bird with teeth. Show me something that is hallway between two species. When I used to believe evolution, the best thing I ever saw in the books I read was archeoptryx or however it's spelled and it's not transitional. It's a weird bird with teeth.

:thumb:

--Dave

 

[alwight]

When it became clear there was no such thing as a transitional form the theory of evolution was falsified.

Instead of admitting defeat, evolutionists decided that species evolved as a whole more quickly in small isolated groups instead of very slowly, in geologic time, individual by individual in the larger groups.

Punctuated equilibrium is purely an explanation as to why the fossil record does not show gradualism. It's an explanation of what cannot be seen and why.

Speciation is nothing more than how the gene pool of a group is dispersed over time from species to sub species within families. As time goes by the gene pool of characteristics become smaller and less diverse.

Evolution is a synthesis an antitheses.

Thesis: DNA is dispersed over time.

Antithesis: DNA is accumulated over time.

The synthesis is that DNA is both accumulated and dispersed over time. We have proof and observation for the one but not the other. Speciation is about the dispersion of existing DNA where as evolution is about the creation of DNA that has not existed before.

Both speciation and evolution are about change, but they are about change in opposite directions. Speciation is the dispersion of information that also leads to a decrease of information, a smaller gene pool. Evolution is the opposite of a decrease of information, it's an increase of information.

Mutations are not an increase in information, they're an alteration of existing information, errors during replication. Mutations within a species account for diversity within a species that is a breakdown, not a building up that is required for evolution to occur.

Proving evolution occurs because mutations occur is like saying cities are built by nature because we can see that buildings naturally fall apart.

--Dave

Some people obviously will never accept that what science (not "evolutionists") concludes is true and rational is true and rational, because for them an un-evidenced supernatural miraculous is somehow more "rational" than rational.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Some people obviously will never accept that what science (not "evolutionists") concludes is true and rational is true and rational, because for them an un-evidenced supernatural miraculous is somehow more "rational" than rational.

Some people will never except what is obviously observable and rational.

We are the evidence for the existence of God.

--Dave

 

[alwight]

Some people will never except what is obviously observable and rational.

We are the evidence for the existence of God.

--Dave

What you reject Dave is science, not me nor "evolutionists". Science must either be a global conspiracy or it doesn't understand its own disciplines.

 

[alwight]

No..... When evolutionists say sudden appearance, they often are trying to cover the fact that they have no evidence... just beliefs.
EXAMPLE:
Dr John Patterson wrote:
The latest find shows sophisticated vision had evolved very rapidly. It came with a bang, in a geological blink of an eye
from Nature#480 p237-240 Also in Canberra Times Dec7/11
What the article is about is giant shrimp about 3' long (1 meter) dated at 515 myo by evolutionists. (Anomalocarus). These shrimp like creatures dated at more than a half billion years.

Notice what he is really saying..... THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THE EYE EVOLVED.

I think you need to make your mind up 6days about what exactly you are arguing about.
We know evolution can occur very rapidly trough artificial selection, a mere blink of an eye (pun intended) in geological terms. But if you are now choosing to argue about what can happen over many millions of years of natural selection then I really can't see how evolution could not happen, since we can see that life is indeed selectively picked off everywhere there is life.

If however you are sticking to your YECism then even natural selection by rapid "punctuated?" evolution would have very little chance to achieve all that much.

If the Earth is only a few thousand years old then a miraculous creation must surely be the only logical, if not rational, conclusion to explain the more intricate structures like the eye. But many millions of years is time enough to explain everything by natural selection, punctuated equilibrium or not.

There is plenty of evidence that the eye can evolve and sometimes even "de-evolve" where eyes are not useful.

http://www.wimp.com/eyeevolution/

 

[DFT_Dave]

I think you need to make your mind up 6days about what exactly you are arguing about.
We know evolution can occur very rapidly trough artificial selection, a mere blink of an eye (pun intended) in geological terms. But if you are now choosing to argue about what can happen over many millions of years of natural selection then I really can't see how evolution could not happen, since we can see that life is indeed selectively picked off everywhere there is life.

If however you are sticking to your YECism then even natural selection by rapid "punctuated?" evolution would have very little chance to achieve all that much.

If the Earth is only a few thousand years old then a miraculous creation must surely be the only logical, if not rational, conclusion to explain the more intricate structures like the eye. But many millions of years is time enough to explain everything by natural selection, punctuated equilibrium or not.

There is plenty of evidence that the eye can evolve and sometimes even "de-evolve" where eyes are not useful.

http://www.wimp.com/eyeevolution/

"Selective breeding (also called artificial selection) is the process by which humans breed other animals and plants for particular traits."

Calling selective breeding evolution is saying nature has a mind. :hammer:

In that case nature is God which is not good news for atheists. :dead:

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

What you reject Dave is science, not me nor "evolutionists". Science must either be a global conspiracy or it doesn't understand its own disciplines.

Oh, I see, there's no other science other than that which supports evolution. Good to know, guess I'll convert now. :salute:

--Dave

 

[6days]

No..... When evolutionists say sudden appearance, they often are trying to cover the fact that they have no evidence... just beliefs.

EXAMPLE:
Dr John Patterson wrote:*
The latest find shows sophisticated vision had evolved very rapidly. It came with a bang, in a geological blink of an eye*
from Nature#480 p237-240 Also in Canberra Times Dec7/11*
What the article is about is giant shrimp about 3' long (1 meter) dated at 515 myo by evolutionists. (Anomalocarus). These shrimp like creatures dated at more than a half billion years.*

Notice what he is really saying..... THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THE EYE EVOLVED.

I think you need to make your mind up 6days about what exactly you are arguing about.*
We know evolution can occur very rapidly trough artificial selection...

What we know is animals can change / adapt rapidly. And not just with artificial selection. There are excellent examples of adaptation in just a few generations with natural selection also. *God programmed info into the genome and breeders often select traits by eliminating pre-existing info. This has nothing to do with 'evolution' ...the belief in a common ancestor.

But if you are now choosing to argue about what can happen over many millions of years of natural selection then I really can't see how evolution could not happen, since we can see that life is indeed selectively picked off everywhere there is life.

Natural selection does not create..EVER. *Natural selection can only eliminate...SOMETIMES.*

If the Earth is only a few thousand years old then a miraculous creation must surely be the only logical, if not rational, conclusion to explain the more intricate structures like the eye.

Who are you????

Ha... yes you are correct. *And I understand you are not believing that.*

But many millions of years is time enough to explain everything by natural selection, punctuated equilibrium or not.

Thousands of years is time enough for genetic disorders and diseases to cause eye problems to most people. We have plenty of evidence that our eyes are getting worsw with time.*

There is plenty of evidence that the eye can evolve and sometimes even "de-evolve" where eyes are not useful.

Yes...we have evidence eyes can "de-volve"( as in blind cave fish). And we have "plenty of evidence" that light spots cant evolve.....and that light spots cant evolve into optimal vision systems with millions of micro processors.*

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
BTW, you were going to tell me about the two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, that don't have a transitional. When do you think you'll be answering that?

(Dave tries to dodge again)

What you call a transitional is simply the diversity that already exists in the gene pool.

Nice try. But here you are:

A transitional is an organism that shares apomorphies with two separate groups. Like Archaeoptyryx which as features characteristic of both birds and reptiles.

Now, how about stopping your excuses and showing us those two groups?

Evolutionists have diversity upside down in their confused anti theist, anti Biblical minds.

Remember, YE creationists deny God's word in Genesis. "Life ex nihilo" is a false doctrine, according to God. You claim to be Biblical, but when God says something you don't like, you reject it.

Adam and Eve had all the DNA that would make up all the rest of humanity.

Impossible. Adam and Eve together could have had at most, 4 alleles for each gene locus. Yet humans today have dozens for most of them. The rest evolved. If you don't understand the most basic things in genetics, what makes you think you understand the nature of evolution?

All genetic characteristics for all kinds, species or families, were put into their DNA by the Creator.

See above. That's just a story your leaders tell you, to get you to believe their story is better than God's word.

(Dave unwisely tries a little quote-mining)

Gould summarized the fossil record in these two ways;

Stasis "Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappeared; morphological change is usually limited and directionless."

Sudden appearance "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."

Well, let's take a look...

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
--Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, p. 260

I don't think you posted that dishonesty by design, Dave. Does it upset you that your leaders lied to you? Enough to start thinking for yourself?

Evolutionists don't what to acknowledge that the Biblical account that God created all the types with limited diversity

If you read the Bible, you'd discover that it doesn't say anything like that. Again, your leaders were counting on your ignorance to persuade you.

Now, how about stepping up and showing us those two groups with no transitional? Remember two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected. I'll see if I can find a transitional.

Your dodging seems to indicate you already realized you claim is wrong. But I'll keep asking.

 

[The Barbarian]

No..... When evolutionists say sudden appearance, they often are trying to cover the fact that they have no evidence... just beliefs.

Well, let's take a look at your belief.

When I was in college, the "sudden appearance" of whales was touted by creationists as evidence that there was no evolution. Then one after another, whales with legs were discovered, a rather extensive series, showing evolution of blowholes, baleen, legs to flippers, etc.

This was backed up by genetic evidence, showing that the genes for legs are still found in whales, and the discovery of some whales in which those genes happened to switch back on.

How many of those do you need to realize your beliefs are wrong?

EXAMPLE
Dr John Patterson wrote:
The latest find shows sophisticated vision had evolved very rapidly. It came with a bang, in a geological blink of an eye
from Nature#480 p237-240

A scientists says the evidence shows that vision evolved rapidly. No news there. Would you like to see some of those findings he's talking about?

Notice what he is really saying..... THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THE EYE EVOLVED.

Most rational people would think that a man saying the findings of research show that vision evolved rapidly, would think that he meant that the evidence shows that vision evolved rapidly.

Would you like to learn about the evidence Patterson is talking about?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Sorry, you're wrong. Natural selection is directly observed. And random variation plus natural selection produces order. Would you like to test that fact?

That's contrary to God's word. He says He created the Earth and the Earth brought forth life, as He intended. No programming necessary. He created a universe with rules that produced all the things He wanted in creation.

Why not just accept it His way?

If you want me to believe all of that, you're out of your mind!

Funny you should bring that up...

Are you trying to tell me that God didn't create the frog or dragonfly?

Of course He did. The Bible says that He used nature to make them. That's the part of the Bible you don't want to believe. Maybe it doesn't meet your expectations. Or maybe someone told you He wasn't that powerful. Hard to say.

God just let natural selection do it's thing?

He made nature for a purpose. And it acts according to His will. That's how it is. No magic. No need for Him to change nature. It is the way it is, because He made it that way.

I could go on an on!

And probably will. This isn't for you. It's for everyone who's looking at the question with an open mind.

 

[6days]

A transitional is an organism that shares apomorphies with two separate groups. Like Archaeoptyryx which as features characteristic of both birds and reptiles.

Genesis 1
Then God said, “Let the waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind.”*21*So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water, and every sort of bird—each producing offspring of the same kind.

Remember, YE creationists deny God's word in Genesis. "Life ex nihilo" is a false doctrine, according to God. You claim to be Biblical, but when God says something you don't like, you reject it.

Psalm 33:9
For when he spoke, the world began! It appeared at his command.

*

Impossible. Adam and Eve together could have had at most, 4 alleles for each gene locus. Yet humans today have dozens for most of them. The rest evolved. If you don't understand the most basic things in genetics, what makes you think you understand the nature of evolution?*

Genesis 3:20...Eve the mother of all

*

If you read the Bible, you'd discover that it doesn't say anything like that.

Genesis 1*
11.These seeds will then produce the kinds of plants and trees from which they came.

12.Their seeds produced plants and trees of the same kind.*

21. So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water, and every sort of bird—each producing offspring of the same kind.*

24*Then God said, “Let the earth produce every sort of animal, each producing offspring of the same kind

25*God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Barbie, has lost Her Mind?

no... Can't be So.


=M=


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

MUSIC!!!

Ark of Time - Bright Eyes (Time Code)

 

[DFT_Dave]

Barbarian asks:
BTW, you were going to tell me about the two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, that don't have a transitional. When do you think you'll be answering that?

(Dave tries to dodge again)

Nice try. But here you are:

A transitional is an organism that shares apomorphies with two separate groups. Like Archaeoptyryx which as features characteristic of both birds and reptiles.

Now, how about stopping your excuses and showing us those two groups?

Archaeopteryx appears in the fossil record...hmmm...suddenly and fully formed. What is transitional between Archaeopteryx and reptiles...hmmm, nothing, so I guess we have no reason to believe it has evolved from non winged reptiles. Name me one so called transitional that we can actually see "gradually" evolving from one species to another. Oh, I forgot, gradualism can't be seen.

--Dave

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Kitten Mittens (Very Quiet Shoes, I didn't even know you were Here!)

=M=


In Fact;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

From the Above Article;

"It may not be the direct ancestor of living birds"

Which has changed from; "Has Proven to not be the Ancestor of any Modern Bird, given there were Bird Fossils found Containing all the Modern Found Bird anatomy, which appeared to be older than the Archaeopteryx."

Sorry Barbie, your Evolution Science is Outdated.

Why don't you tell me about how you think Speciation Occurs in Nature all the Time, by animal Species being "Split Up"; Yet the Dog and Wolf are Still the Same Exact Species and Speciation Never Occurred.

If speciation is Truth; Why would that be Barbie?

If the Theory of Evolution is Truth; Why do Evolutionists constantly make False Predictions about Nature; Like saying the Archaeopteryx was the Ancestor of Modern Birds, and the Intermediate between Dinos and Birds?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
A transitional is an organism that shares apomorphies with two separate groups. Like Archaeoptyryx which as features characteristic of both birds and reptiles.

Notice that this is entirely consistent with Genesis 1

Then God said, “Let the waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind.”*21*So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water, and every sort of bird—each producing offspring of the same kind.

Nothing says how that happened, only that it came from nature. Why does it so offend you that He did it using nature?

Remember, YE creationists deny God's word in Genesis. "Life ex nihilo" is a false doctrine, according to God. You claim to be Biblical, but when God says something you don't like, you reject it.
Psalm 33:9

For when he spoke, the world began! It appeared at his command.

Indeed. It is the creationist habit of conflating the creation of the universe from nothing with the creation of life, which God says was from previously created things.

Barbarian observes:
Impossible. Adam and Eve together could have had at most, 4 alleles for each gene locus. Yet humans today have dozens for most of them. The rest evolved. If you don't understand the most basic things in genetics, what makes you think you understand the nature of evolution?*

Genesis 3:20...Eve the mother of all

Which is consistent with the evolution of all those alleles by mutation and natural selection, but not consistent with your belief that she had all those alleles in her genes. She could have had two alleles, no more.

Barbarian suggests:
If you read the Bible, you'd discover that it doesn't say anything like that.

Genesis 1:11.These seeds will then produce the kinds of plants and trees from which they came.

Well, let's take a look...

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Doesn't say what you want it to say, does it?

12.Their seeds produced plants and trees of the same kind.*

Let's see that...


Genesis 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind

And again, it doesn't say what you told us it does.

21. So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water, and every sort of bird—each producing offspring of the same kind.*

Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Nothing about offspring of the same kind. You made that up as you wished.

24*Then God said, “Let the earth produce every sort of animal, each producing offspring of the same kind

25*God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind

Hmmm...

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

So, doesn't it mean anything to you, that you feel compelled to change is word in order to make your point?

 

[The Barbarian]

BTW, you were going to tell me about the two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, that don't have a transitional. When do you think you'll be answering that?

(Dave tries to dodge again)

Nice try. But here you are:

A transitional is an organism that shares apomorphies with two separate groups. Like Archaeoptyryx which as features characteristic of both birds and reptiles.

Now, how about stopping your excuses and showing us those two groups?

(Dave tries to dodge again)

Archaeopteryx appears in the fossil record...hmmm...suddenly and fully formed.

Every transitional fossil shows up suddenly and fully formed. What does a half-formed animal look like? C'mon. Be honest with yourself here, and just take a deep breath, stand up and show us those two major groups. Or admit you were blowing smoke about a supposed lack of transitionals.

What is transitional between Archaeopteryx and reptiles...hmmm,

Proarchaeopteryx.

Spoiler

nothing,

Surprise. It's really hard to pull off the "a fossil doesn't change so it can't be a transitional" scam.

Now try to man up and show us those two major groups that don't have a transitional.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Remember that the Pseudopigrapha isn't totally true; that's the reason they were removed, after all.

=M=

Dear Mark,

I already know that about the Pseudopigrapha. It is a huge book. You can only access it for reference at the Library. Can't check it out. And of course, none of it's books are reliable enough to be considered as absolute fact and that's why they weren't included in our Holy Bible.

Sure, I'll wash your feet,

Michael


:rapture: