Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
Until a mutation becomes "fixed" it has been slowly changing the population gradually. So, then we should see the gradual change in a population over time in the fossil record along with that part of that does not change, right?
--Dave
You probably need to be very quiet about that subject. If you're not, someone might show you a few things you don't want to see.
Remember when you quoted someone attributing science to faith in a creator? And then I showed you that it was false. And then you responded this way:
You knew that there wasn't anything remotely like that in scripture. Rather than address what I said, you fabricated something you felt you could beat up on. Shame on you.
Thanks Michael... but most atheists on TOL are great. Alwight and gcthomas do a awesome job of defending their beliefs. We don't agree with them but I appreciate them (usually) *
Dear 6days,
Of course I know that. Alwight is one of my best friends. And same with Stuart. And I have Hedshaker and gcthomas for friends, also. Noguru is usually kind also. We used to be closer, but I don't know what happened. Yes, they are trying sometimes. Of course, I love them! I'm sure that it shows, regardless of my opinions here and there.
Michael
:cloud9:
:jump:
in my experience there is really no correlation between scripture and science. i do not doubt the intricacies and facts of genetics, species, basic evolution and all of modern science. i really don't think we can argue scripture against science per se. no contest, science has facts. i keep up with science on a basic level and study The Bible. i guess i'm ok with accepting the truths of both. i'm not real sure what point each side is making yet. if we keep going back in the thought process though, we get to a point where science and God converge. and God wins. science will never explain the complexity and diversity of life on earth, let alone the uni or multi verses, i get it, that chickens and birds came from dinosaurs perhaps, and everything used to be something else, forced to adapt and change to survive and flourish on earth. i am not a creationist or evolutionist or scientist. God created all things for us to experience, learn, explore and wonder. everything leads back to God in the end:third:
Patrick Jane;
There is no Proof that Birds descended from Dinosaurs.
In fact, the dinosaur that Evolutionists believed for so long that Birds descended from (given it had Feathers); Come to find out, wasn't the Ancestor of any of the Modern Bird Species, and that there are Fossils of Birds that Pre-date the "Archaeopteryx" that Evolutionists first believed birds descended from.
=M=
If they found Bird Fossils older than the Fossils of the Dino that they say Birds Descended From; Evolutionists are wrong about Bird Evolution.
Of course; Debating the various Evolutionists at this site, I feel it's pretty safe to assume that Evolutionists are wrong, nearly all the time.
It takes a Real Special kind of Faith, to believe that Inorganic Materials can Magically Arrange themselves into Animals capable of thought; Through "Time", and Observable Natural Processes (like Death and Reproduction).
However, when you ask them to Explain just how Death, and Reproduction can lead to New Forms of Animals; they just can't say.
If a Weaker Species Dies off, that just leaves less Species, it doesn't create New Ones; and Animals Splitting Up doesn't lead to Speciation, Just Consider the Dog and Wolf.
There is Plenty of proof against Speciation, and thereby against the Theory of Evolution as a Reasonably Acceptable Explanation of where the Various Species Originated.
Creation of Fully Developed Adult Forms of Animals, is the Only it could have worked.
Think about it, there was probably fruit on the Trees and All, when they were Created.
There is no Proof that Birds descended from Dinosaurs.
In fact, the dinosaur that Evolutionists believed for so long that Birds descended from (given it had Feathers); Come to find out, wasn't the Ancestor of any of the Modern Bird Species, and that there are Fossils of Birds that Pre-date the "Archaeopteryx" that Evolutionists first believed birds descended from.
=M=
If they found Bird Fossils older than the Fossils of the Dino that they say Birds Descended From; Evolutionists are wrong about Bird Evolution.
Of course; Debating the various Evolutionists at this site, I feel it's pretty safe to assume that Evolutionists are wrong, nearly all the time.
It takes a Real Special kind of Faith, to believe that Inorganic Materials can Magically Arrange themselves into Animals capable of thought; Through "Time", and Observable Natural Processes (like Death and Reproduction).
However, when you ask them to Explain just how Death, and Reproduction can lead to New Forms of Animals; they just can't say.
If a Weaker Species Dies off, that just leaves less Species, it doesn't create New Ones; and Animals Splitting Up doesn't lead to Speciation, Just Consider the Dog and Wolf.
There is Plenty of proof against Speciation, and thereby against the Theory of Evolution as a Reasonably Acceptable Explanation of where the Various Species Originated.
Creation of Fully Developed Adult Forms of Animals, is the Only it could have worked.
Think about it, there was probably fruit on the Trees and All, when they were Created.
Besides;
Creationists are not Against Science; Many of them I know study, and have a Firm Grasp of Science.
Science - is Observable Truth.
The Many Creationists I know believe Science, just not the Many Theories held by Evolutionists; most Likely because their Theories are so Unbelievable, and have no Basis for Reason in Reality.
=M=
Oh and, If any Evolutionists or Atheists want to Ask a Question about Science;
Creationists are not Against Science; Many of them I know study, and have a Firm Grasp of Science.
Science - is Observable Truth.
The Many Creationists I know believe Science, just not the Many Theories held by Evolutionists; most Likely because their Theories are so Unbelievable, and have no Basis for Reason in Reality.
=M=
Oh and, If any Evolutionists or Atheists want to Ask a Question about Science;
K:K::troll::backflip:i agree with that, that's why i'm not an evolutionist. i'll let other people do the science and research and take it under consideration. i said the bird thing because i've heard that theory. i'm not well versed or interested in all the specific details and minutia of the progression of species, plants and animals or infinite space. i could get stuck focusing on little details that won't matter or change anything. i'm not trying to change anything or anyone. early "man" as it is presented, that we came from apes is not fact. when God breathed spiritual life into Adam and created the first man, that's when life as we know it began. boom
i consider evolution just the basic observations we know to be true about life on earth, that's what i mean by basic evolution. to evolve over time in a general sense, you know:yoshi:
I realize you are not an Evolutionist.
Don't you mean Mutation, and Not Evolution?
Given Mutation is Observable, and Speciation/Evolution is not.
I mean, you believe in Observable Science, not theories, Right?
=M=
Last edited:
yeah, i'm going to stay way from the E word. obviously, i know science has progressed since darwin. i'm not going to mince words like; mutation or speciation. i've seen in nature and just being alive that there are many many many many many variables that go into attempting to define something like life and creation and the existence of God. atheists are quite happy if you ask them. no need for God. just the facts and numbers. they might say God is invisible. i see God everywhere. look out your window. love ya =M=. fight the good fight :mrt::up:
I totally Agree, Patrick Jane!
: D
I've gotta Go, have Fun.
Night.
=M=
: D
I've gotta Go, have Fun.
Night.
=M=
Dear patrick jane,
You're doing just fine, patrick! But now things were not forced to adapt and change to survive and flourish on earth. That's what we are disputing between us. That God makes those changes, or that science makes those changes. That God creates those changes or that they are made by natural selection. 6days, Mark, and myself say that God makes the changes and has Complete Control over it all. The evolutionists/atheists say that it is done by natural selection and that there is no God. So that is the argument. We know there is a God and they don't believe in One, except noguru. He wants to believe both. But the trouble is, you can't have it both ways because it means the Universe is 75 years old and the Earth is 3.5 billion years old; or 8,000 years old, like the Bible says. The Bible says that the Universe was created during the same week as the Earth was created. That's what the problem is. It's a sticky wicket!! You pick either side you want. You will be in an argument, either way. And that's the way it is in Burbank, CA.
Michael
Dear patrick jane,
Mark is trying to tell you that basic evolution is not the correct thing to say, but instead you say basic 'mutation.' Mutation is observable. Evolution is not observable. Just trying to clear up some things for you. You can't go wrong going by the Bible. God created man and woman as young adults rather than babies in a crib. He also created the creatures, like whales, cattle, goats, all in a mature point in their lives, not as babies. God created chickens, and ducks. It does not say He created their eggs and someone sat on them until they hatched. Do you understand what I'm saying here? There is absolutely no reason that God did not make our Universe and Earth older also, when He created them both. They were created days apart according to chapter one of Genesis. That being the case, how are they saying that Universe and Earth aren't the same age? Hope this helps. Don't think too much!
Michael
Mark is trying to tell you that basic evolution is not the correct thing to say, but instead you say basic 'mutation.' Mutation is observable. Evolution is not observable. Just trying to clear up some things for you. You can't go wrong going by the Bible. God created man and woman as young adults rather than babies in a crib. He also created the creatures, like whales, cattle, goats, all in a mature point in their lives, not as babies. God created chickens, and ducks. It does not say He created their eggs and someone sat on them until they hatched. Do you understand what I'm saying here? There is absolutely no reason that God did not make our Universe and Earth older also, when He created them both. They were created days apart according to chapter one of Genesis. That being the case, how are they saying that Universe and Earth aren't the same age? Hope this helps. Don't think too much!
Michael
i can see that i'm arguing both sides and seem to be agreeing with both sides. to me personally, i don't care how old anyone says anything is. if i say life was forced to adapt or go extinct i'm speaking generally, i could say God forced it or made it happen, personally, again just me, i may not agree with how involved God is in every detail of life on earth. so many horrible terrible evil things happen every second. the harshness and cruelty of people and nature. we all get 100 trips around the sun at most, and God expects us to get it right before we die ? we are born into sin and we must overcome the world around us or go to hell. even if people never got a chance to know Jesus. whole nuther topic, i know. how do i make sense of the whole story. i turn it over to God and allow it to make sense in my mind. i try not to fight it. peace and love to all and God Bless:jawdrop: what is allele ? anyone ? :doh:
alwight
New member
Firstly I defer to Barbarian's better technical knowledge Dave, I simply tell it as I see it without any presumptions of there having to be miraculous events to explain away the more difficult parts to understand.
If I don't understand then I assume it is my inability to understand that is the problem not that a supernatural must be therefore become the only explanation.
My understanding of genetics in this case, for what it's worth, is that individuals are the result of evolution but have their own unique DNA.
However the close similarity of DNA and physical traits within a species enables sexual reproduction while expressed traits in each new generation are again subject to natural selection.
More suitable traits may well become more widespread in the new generations and improved on over time and thereby become "fixed" throughout the species.
So it really doesn't matter if individuals all share a particular mutation since they will all succeed or fail based on only what they have. Nothing succeeds like success? In fact evolution rather requires differences to exist within species so that better traits can be selected, become established and perhaps typical of the species.
alwight
New member
Creationists who "have a firm grasp of science" don't seem to be having much of an impact on the end product Mark.
I wonder how even the more unlikely naturalistic explanations would become more unbelievable than a miraculous creation. :think:
gcthomas
New member
Creationists who "have a firm grasp of science" is an oxymoron, unless they think they have a firm grasp around science's neck? (Picture an underfed village idiot trying to strangle a champion weightlifter..
)
noguru
Well-known member
Neither am I an "evolutionist". That is a made up word that creationists use to try and make accepting science the same as theological faith. It is like saying "You are a gravitist.", simply because one accepts the evidence for gravity. Evolution in biology is about biodiversity and determining the mechanisms which lead to that from common ancestry. Those mechanisms, one more time, are genetic variation and reproductive advantage. Neither of these mechanisms have been falsified, and this is why creationists behave like little children. Kicking and screaming because they don't like the evidence. They seem to want to keep the mechanisms for biodiversity a mystery so they can say it was "miraculous". This is why I asked one of our resident anti science dogmatic creationists to define "miracle" for us. You see that none had the courage or honesty to tackle that question.
I do not dispute that there is a God. Nor do I dispute that God uses nature to bring about his plan. Creationists want to make their God an inept God who cannot create a seamless and completely functional universe which fulfills His purpose.
Last edited:
noguru
Well-known member
You cannot possibly be agreeing with both sides. Creationists place "divine revelation" as a higher priority than empirical evidence in regard to science. In other words they take a specific static and ancient view of the cosmos, a view developed before modern science, and cling stubbornly to that view. In doing this they reject any empirical evidence which contradicts that view.
Last edited:
- Status