What can evolutionary biologists and creationists agree upon?

[aharvey]

As an evolutionary biologist, I am always perplexed by the commonly made statement by creationists that there is "no evidence for evolution." In contrast, evolutionary biologists consider there to be substantial evidence for evolution; and it is difficult for me to come up with a scientific basis for this drastic discrepancy. Both groups live on the same planet, have access to the same organisms, data, and analytical tools; surely they can agree on something!

Thus, here I'd like to try to identify what the two groups can unequivocally agree on, and move away from that noncontroversial starting point to the point where creationists find that the explanatory power of evolutionary theory fails.

Let's conduct a series of tests that compare the DNA extracted from the leg tissue of a single specimen of the Rice Weevil Sitophilus oryzae (The choice of organism is irrelevant to the larger issue. I chose the Rice Weevil because I wrote this page in response to a recurring controversy on the Entomology list-serve, and happen to have several thousand of the weevils in my lab. One could make the same kind of table with any organism.). The table linked here (http://www.bio.georgiasouthern.edu/bio-home/harvey/evlwevl.html) qualitatively summarizes expected results of DNA comparisons of the rice weevil to the DNA of a series of organisms that systematically vary in their expected relationship with the rice weevil. In this table, the "relationships" column is irrelevant to the question at hand. It is provided merely to give a reader unfamiliar with these taxa a sense of how similar each sample is to the first within the context of current classifications. Likewise, the "scale" of the expected genetic similarity is strictly qualitative; i.e., it doesn't matter whether you consider the DNA of the click beetle to be "almost identical" or "extremely similar" to that of the rice weevil.

The expected results and evolutionary explanations are color-coded to match the common definition of evolution as descent with modification; each blue result reflects common descent, and each magenta result reflects modification.

If you consider yourself a creationist/intelligent design proponent, my questions are, as you work down the series of comparisons,
1. at what comparison do you first reject the evolutionary interpretation?
2. why at that particular comparison?
3. what is the preferred explanation?
4. why does that explanation apply to that comparison but not the previous ones?

I'd appreciate any thoughts on this topic.

[tseeker]

Perhaps you should start by defining what you mean when you use the word "evolution".

[Gerald]

Evolution: changes in alleles over time.

[aharvey]

I did: "The expected results and evolutionary explanations are color-coded to match the common definition of evolution as descent with modification; each blue result reflects common descent, and each magenta result reflects modification."

[Jukia]

aharvey: Good luck, most of the creationists here fall back on "God did it", "the Bible says so", "evolutionists are all God-less atheistists", "there is a conspiracy to keep creationist papers from the standard journals".
The preferred explanation you are likely to get is that all you have is micro-evolution, not macro-evolution and someone will no doubt raise the issue of how can mutations add information (that is the current hot button from what I can tell)
If you get any serious response I will be amazed, and interested.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Jukia
...atheistists"...

What are "atheistists?"

[Greywolf]

aharvey,

Good luck finding a creationist around here who actually understands how evolution works. I know that there is at least one, but other than that...

Welcome to TOL, BTW.

[cur_deus_homo]

Creationists (YECs, OECs), Evolutionists, Intelligent Design Theorists, yada, yada, yada...

Whether God created "me" 6000 years ago or "I" evolved from a tiny mole-like mammalian species who survived the extinction at the end of the Jurassic, it doesn't change the current circumstances of my life or anyone else's one bit, I would argue.

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by aharvey

I did: "The expected results and evolutionary explanations are color-coded to match the common definition of evolution as descent with modification; each blue result reflects common descent, and each magenta result reflects modification."
"each blue result reflects common descent"
WHY?

"each magenta result reflects modification"
You expect God didnt adjust the DNA for different "kinds"?

1. at what comparison do you first reject the evolutionary interpretation?
when you go from one "kind" of animal, to another

2. why at that particular comparison?

because MICRO evolution is NOT proof of MACRO evolution.
just because we have many types of dogs, does not prove a dog will ever be a NON-dog

3. what is the preferred explanation?

God created "kinds" with the ability to adapt

4. why does that explanation apply to that comparison but not the previous ones?

was i not consistent?

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by brother Willi

because MICRO evolution is NOT proof of MACRO evolution
Big assumption.

Originally posted by brother Willi

just because we have many types of dogs, does not prove a dog will ever be a NON-dog

But evolutionary theory doesn't posit that dogs "become" non-dogs in some kind of binary fashion as you imply. Calling an animal a "dog" and something else a "non-dog" is a taxonomic decision and does not necessarily imply that both animals come from the same "branch" of the evolutionary bush or not.

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo

Big assumption.

its a bigger assumption to believe it is proof




But evolutionary theory doesn't posit that dogs "become" non-dogs in some kind of binary fashion as you imply. Calling an animal a "dog" and something else a "non-dog" is a taxonomic decision and does not necessarily imply that both animals come from the same "branch" of the evolutionary bush or not.
I need you to explain then why evolution has a bush, tree, what ever you want to call it.
in other words, what do evolutionist believe became a dog?

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by brother Willi

its a bigger assumption to believe it is proof

I didn't say it's proof, but it sure is very convincing evidence for so-called "macro evolution." Besides, claiming there's some kind of difference between micro and macro evolution is a red herring. Once one grasps the concept of evolution, even in a very basic way, one will realize that the micro/macro distinction is simply a rhetorical device used by anti-evolutionists who don't understand evolution.

Originally posted by brother Willi

I need you to explain then why evolution has a bush, tree, what ever you want to call it.

Most evolutionists, I think, will admit that "bush" is a better metaphor than "tree." However, it's just a metaphor.

Originally posted by brother Willi

in other words, what do evolutionist believe became a dog?

I implore you to get over the "naming" of the species otherwise you'll never comprehend what you're arguing against.

Try to imagine a "line" of animals throughout evolutionary history and call this "line" the "dog" line. At the end of the line in the present imagine any old particular dog you want to (even your own dog chained up in the backyard) and call that "DOG(n)." Now trace in your imagination the "sequence" of the line and the various ancestral animals of that particular "dog" back to something that doesn't look like a "dog" and that you would not call a "dog" today. Now call that animal "DOG(0)." So, what you have is this...

DOG(n)
DOG(n-1)
DOG(n-2)
DOG(n-3)
.
.
.
DOG(n-n) which is DOG(0)

So, you see, the name is totally arbitrary.

Now try the same thought experiment with any particular animal, even, dare I say it, a human, and call that animal LIFE(n). Now trace LIFE(n) back to the very origin of LIFE() to get LIFE(0).

You see? That's not so hard, was it?

Look, do I believe I "evolved" from some "non-human" species? Of course not! That would have been quite a gestation! I came from human parents and so did you and everyone else we know and everyone they knew in the past and so on...

[Aussie Thinker]

Cur-deus-homo,

From an atheist point of view it is always enlightening to meet a theist who makes eminent sense...

Always cuts back my arrogance about there being NO god...lol.. good response.

[bagels & lox]

That George Bush is an a-hole.

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo

I didn't say it's proof, but it sure is very convincing evidence for so-called "macro evolution."
not to me, but you are free to believe as you wish


Most evolutionists, I think, will admit that "bush" is a better metaphor than "tree." However, it's just a metaphor.


yep


I implore you to get over the "naming" of the species otherwise you'll never comprehend what you're arguing against.

nope, keep reading, you will understand my point


DOG(n)
DOG(n-1)
DOG(n-2)
DOG(n-3)
.
.
.
DOG(n-n) which is DOG(0)

So, you see, the name is totally arbitrary.

various ancestral animals?
are you saying a dog (D) has always been (D)?
a true evolutionist will trace (D) back to when it was not a (D)!
remember unless you are willing to call the first living cell (D) then cats (C) are also traced back to (D), as all life would be traced back to your (D)

a true evolutionist sees
(A)
(A1)
(A2)
(A3) becoming (B), (B1), (B2)
(A4)

now (C) can come from (A) group or (B) group
that is how evolution works according to the wacky theory




Look, do I believe I "evolved" from some "non-human" species? Of course not! That would have been quite a gestation! I came from human parents and so did you and everyone else we know and everyone they knew in the past and so on...
I'm most happy to hear that

[aharvey]

Maybe the intent of my original post was unclear. I already knew that creationists would disagree with evolutionary biologists by arguing that beetles and bacteria do not share a common ancestor, and I considered it a safe assumption that they would agree with evolutionary biologists that two beetles from the same clutch do share a common ancestor.

Therefore, there must be some point, in between these two extremes, where creationists no longer agree with the evolutionary view (that the degree of similarity between two organisms reflects the distance between their nearest common ancestor).

Put another way, as we gradually move away from comparing an individual to itself, the pattern stays the same, and the evolutionary interpretation stays the same. Why does the creationist interpretation suddenly change?

Originally posted by brother Willi

{at what point?} when you go from one "kind" of animal, to another

{why not at the previous comparison?} because MICRO evolution is NOT proof of MACRO evolution.
just because we have many types of dogs, does not prove a dog will ever be a NON-dog


"Microevolution" must therefore occur within "kinds" and "macroevolution" does not occur from one "kind" to another. So the creationist change in interpretation of a single pattern begins when you're comparing two different "kinds," and the reason for the change is that they are two different "kinds."

But what is a "kind"? I've seen creationist papers that define "kind" as everything from conspecifics to members of the same domain! (see Wood et. al, 2003. "A refined baramin concept." Occasional Papers of the BSG 3:1-14 for examples and references). Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a biological basis for any of these definitions, so how do you choose among them? And without a nonarbitrary way of defining a "kind," and therefore "micro" and "macro" evolution, I don't see any rational way to determine where evolutionary models no longer apply.

Incidentally, claiming that an explanation must be wrong because it hasn't been "proven" right is pretty much the same as saying "I have no idea."

[tseeker]

Originally posted by aharvey

I did: "The expected results and evolutionary explanations are color-coded to match the common definition of evolution as descent with modification; each blue result reflects common descent, and each magenta result reflects modification."

If "descent with modification" is all that is meant by evolution then it is clear that all my children have evolved from me.

Gerald,
Since no descendent of mine has the same percentage of alleles as the human population then "change in alleles" is inevitable whenever a human being is born or dies.

-------

Obviously all creationists agree with "descent with modification" and "change in alleles". Any disagreement over "evolution" must be a figment of people's imagination.

[tseeker]

Originally posted by aharvey

Maybe the intent of my original post was unclear. I already knew that creationists would disagree with evolutionary biologists by arguing that beetles and bacteria do not share a common ancestor, and I considered it a safe assumption that they would agree with evolutionary biologists that two beetles from the same clutch do share a common ancestor.

Therefore, there must be some point, in between these two extremes, where creationists no longer agree with the evolutionary view (that the degree of similarity between two organisms reflects the distance between their nearest common ancestor).

Put another way, as we gradually move away from comparing an individual to itself, the pattern stays the same, and the evolutionary interpretation stays the same. Why does the creationist interpretation suddenly change?



"Microevolution" must therefore occur within "kinds" and "macroevolution" does not occur from one "kind" to another. So the creationist change in interpretation of a single pattern begins when you're comparing two different "kinds," and the reason for the change is that they are two different "kinds."

But what is a "kind"? I've seen creationist papers that define "kind" as everything from conspecifics to members of the same domain! (see Wood et. al, 2003. "A refined baramin concept." Occasional Papers of the BSG 3:1-14 for examples and references). Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a biological basis for any of these definitions, so how do you choose among them? And without a nonarbitrary way of defining a "kind," and therefore "micro" and "macro" evolution, I don't see any rational way to determine where evolutionary models no longer apply.

"Kind" is apparently as difficult for creationists to determine as "species" is for evolutionists. Perhaps they are both like pornography, difficult to define but easy to "know when I see it".

Incidentally, claiming that an explanation must be wrong because it hasn't been "proven" right is pretty much the same as saying "I have no idea."

Creationists would harbor no disagreement if evolutionists were humble enough to admit that the general "theory of evolution" (goo to the zoo) has never been shown to be true.

Evolution is similar to the Big Bang in that both are extrapolations which if taken to their logical extreme yield nonsense.

Evolutionists know this, which is why they cop out by arguing that "evolution does not include abiogenesis", just as astrophysicists cop out at the singularity they have painted themselves into the corner with.

We all know that cells did not come into existence from some non-cell predecessor, just as we all know that the universe was not once the size of the dot at the end of this sentence.

Scientists who deny God's role in creating the universe and life were described in scripture as vain creatures who "professing to be wise became fools".

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker

From an atheist point of view it is always enlightening to meet a theist who makes eminent sense...

Thanks, I try real hard to understand different worldviews and scientific theories. If I refuse to understand them then I render myself incapable of respecting the person who advocates such-and-such worldview or theory. That doesn't mean I have to agree with all the various worldviews out there, that would not make sense. But if I at least try to understand them then I increase my chances that people will respect me and my own worldview when I advocate it. Seems pretty sensible, doesn't it?

You know, I have always been scientifically inclined, and I had always believed evolution was a reasonable explanation of the history of life. But then when I started taking Christ and Christianity more seriously I bought into the whole "evolution is godless" thing and "the theory is falling apart," blah, blah, blah... This was mostly the result of peer pressure with the pseudo-scientific strains of Christian apologetics. But during that period I always read books by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, etc. to keep abreast of what apologists for evolution were saying. And then I read a book called Tower of Babel by Robert Pennock. I don't say this about too many books, but that one changed my whole outlook on matters of intellect and faith, specifically on evolution and theism. Anyone interested in the so-called evolution/creation debate must read that book. Then I started reading Howad Van Til, John Polkinghorne, Arthur Peacocke, Kenneth Miller, etc.

Anyway, to make a long story short, I realized such beliefs like "Jesus died for the forgiveness of my sins" and "Humans descended from species that we would call 'non-human'" are not mutually exclusive.

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo
Thanks, I try real hard to understand different worldviews and scientific theories. If I refuse to understand them then I render myself incapable of respecting the person who advocates such-and-such worldview or theory. That doesn't mean I have to agree with all the various worldviews out there, that would not make sense. But if I at least try to understand them then I increase my chances that people will respect me and my own worldview when I advocate it. Seems pretty sensible, doesn't it?

You know, I have always been scientifically inclined, and I had always believed evolution was a reasonable explanation of the history of life. But then when I started taking Christ and Christianity more seriously I bought into the whole "evolution is godless" thing and "the theory is falling apart," blah, blah, blah... This was mostly the result of peer pressure with the pseudo-scientific strains of Christian apologetics. But during that period I always read books by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, etc. to keep abreast of what apologists for evolution were saying. And then I read a book called Tower of Babel by Robert Pennock. I don't say this about too many books, but that one changed my whole outlook on matters of intellect and faith, specifically on evolution and theism. Anyone interested in the so-called evolution/creation debate must read that book. Then I started reading Howad Van Til, John Polkinghorne, Arthur Peacocke, Kenneth Miller, etc.

Anyway, to make a long story short, I realized such beliefs like "Jesus died for the forgiveness of my sins" and "Humans descended from species that we would call 'non-human'" are not mutually exclusive.

:thumb:

[aharvey]

Originally posted by tseeker

Obviously all creationists agree with "descent with modification" and "change in alleles". Any disagreement over "evolution" must be a figment of people's imagination.

Well, that would be worth knowing, wouldn't it! Alas, it's obviously not the case:

Originally posted by tseeker

Evolution is similar to the Big Bang in that both are extrapolations which if taken to their logical extreme yield nonsense.

Evolutionists know this, which is why they cop out by arguing that "evolution does not include abiogenesis", just as astrophysicists cop out at the singularity they have painted themselves into the corner with.

I really am not having much luck with this topic! Yes, I know that creationists have problems with the "logical extreme" end of evolution (i.e., the origin of life rather than the diversification of life that we evolutionary biologists actually study). Since you've agreed that descent with modification DOES occur at some level, you can't be arguing that because evolutionists can't explain everything, they can't explain anything. So, once again, where does the problem begin?

Originally posted by tseeker

"Kind" is apparently as difficult for creationists to determine as "species" is for evolutionists. Perhaps they are both like pornography, difficult to define but easy to "know when I see it".

Hmm, I'd say creationists are having a more difficult time of it. Most definitions of "species" 1) have some sort of biological justification to them, and 2) will agree on "species" limits most of the time. Neither is true for creationist definitions of "kind."

[Jukia]

aharvey: the problem you are having with this is the inability of creationists to look beyond Genesis. You can suggest till you are blue in the face, that there is substanial evidence for evolution but you might as well be talking to the wall. All the evidence in the world will not come close to suggesting to some on this board that they ought to consider something other than special creation ala Genesis.

Science is God-less and full of conspiracies to keep the Truth from being known.

Good luck.

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Jukia

aharvey: the problem you are having with this is the inability of creationists to look beyond Genesis. You can suggest till you are blue in the face, that there is substanial evidence for evolution but you might as well be talking to the wall. All the evidence in the world will not come close to suggesting to some on this board that they ought to consider something other than special creation ala Genesis.

Which is why I'm purposefully avoiding that approach. There seems little point in wasting anyone's time going over, yet again, evidence for evolution. I'm merely presenting a sequence of simple, uncontroversial patterns and their evolutionary interpretation, and trying to find out at what point the evolutionary interpretation becomes controversial.

It does occur to me, though, that I may have overlooked tseeker's answer to this latter question. Did you (tseeker) mean to suggest that the evolutionary explanation for my sequence of comparisons first breaks down with the origin of life? I didn't think to include a comparison #31 (e.g., rice weevil vs. rock?) in my example.

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by brother Willi

various ancestral animals?
are you saying a dog (D) has always been (D)?
a true evolutionist will trace (D) back to when it was not a (D)!
remember unless you are willing to call the first living cell (D) then cats (C) are also traced back to (D), as all life would be traced back to your (D)

a true evolutionist sees
(A)
(A1)
(A2)
(A3) becoming (B), (B1), (B2)
(A4)

now (C) can come from (A) group or (B) group
that is how evolution works according to the wacky theory


I had a feeling you wouldn't understand my examples of the arrays DOG() and LIFE(). That's OK. Let me try again:

Let DOG(n) = 3

Let the number 3 = "Chow Chow" (or even all "dogs")

Let x = 0.000001

Let 0.000001 = the "changes" of each generation of the population of "Chows" (or "dogs," if you like)

Now follow the ancesrty of the Chow Chow ("dogs"), and for each iteration of the array the value will correspondingly decrease by x.

DOG(n - 1) = 3 - 1x or 2.999999 (which is very, very close to 3; for almost all "practical" purposes 2.999999 can function as 3 can)

DOG(n - 2) = 3 - 2x or 2.999998 (still very close to 3)
.
.
.
DOG(n - 1,000,000) = 2


Now try real hard to forget that the name of the array is DOG() and concentrate on the FACT that DOG(n) = 3 and DOG(n - 1,000,000) = 2. If we are to maintain any sense of rationality and hope (and sanity, I suggest), we must admit that 2 does not equal 3.

So, when we use the word "dog" to refer to "Chows" and "Beagles," it is very close to the same idea I have outlined above. That is, the word "dog" would represent the numbers "around 3" and "Chow Chow" might be something like the value 3.000001 and "Beagle" something like the value 3.00001.

This explanation, I admit, is a gross oversimplification, but it nevertheless conveys the basic concept of evolution and demonstrates the fallacy that "at some point" "dogs" become "non-dogs." If someone wants to pin down "when" the change "happens" they completely misunderstand evolution and its power to create change through subtle differences in populations.

The fact is that the "change happens" every time a member of the "species" in question reproduces. It's that simple.

Don't get me wrong, brother Willi, I am not trying to make you believe in evolution. I am simply trying to demonstrate what evolution is really all about so those of us who are Christians and care deeply about arguing against the "truth" of evolution will understand the very thing they argue against and not some limp strawman theory in their imagination.

As you can tell, I accept the fact that the history of life transpired in a way that reflects the broad theory of biological evolution.

[tseeker]

Originally posted by aharvey

I really am not having much luck with this topic! Yes, I know that creationists have problems with the "logical extreme" end of evolution (i.e., the origin of life rather than the diversification of life that we evolutionary biologists actually study).

Creationists have no problem with "the diversification of life", since it is obviously necessary in order to generate all the varieties of animals we see today from the lesser number of animals preserved on the Ark.

Since you've agreed that descent with modification DOES occur at some level, you can't be arguing that because evolutionists can't explain everything, they can't explain anything. So, once again, where does the problem begin?

Since you have just admitted that evolutionists cannot explain everything, why do you insist that creationists have to explain everything?

Hmm, I'd say creationists are having a more difficult time of it. Most definitions of "species" 1) have some sort of biological justification to them, and 2) will agree on "species" limits most of the time. Neither is true for creationist definitions of "kind."

If you think that determining a species is, in many cases, not just a matter of opinion , then you know less about evolutionary theory than I thought.

Whether creationists have a good definition of "kind" or not has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of the matter. Of course the same is true for definitions of species. The reason I bring this up is that the dispute really comes down to an "argument from authority". Evolutionists are really saying that they are better scientists than creationists are and therefore we should bow down to their superior knowledge.

The problem with this argument is that it ignores the superior authority of the one who created the universe and life, and He told us the straight scoop. Once one recognizes what the truth is then it is almost child's play to see the fallacies in "naturalistic" origin theories.

You should try bowing down to God instead of other men. Once you really do this in earnest you may then be able to see as a child, and recognize that evolution is nothing more than a modern revival of the age old lie which deceived all ancient cultures which turned their backs on God.

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by tseeker
If you think that determining a species is, in many cases, not just a matter of opinion , then you know less about evolutionary theory than I thought.

Whether creationists have a good definition of "kind" or not has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of the matter. Of course the same is true for definitions of species. The reason I bring this up is that the dispute really comes down to an "argument from authority". Evolutionists are really saying that they are better scientists than creationists are and therefore we should bow down to their superior knowledge.

The problem with this argument is that it ignores the superior authority of the one who created the universe and life, and He told us the straight scoop. Once one recognizes what the truth is then it is almost child's play to see the fallacies in "naturalistic" origin theories.

You should try bowing down to God instead of other men. Once you really do this in earnest you may then be able to see as a child, and recognize that evolution is nothing more than a modern revival of the age old lie which deceived all ancient cultures which turned their backs on God.

Wrong. Evolution is a scientific theory based on fossil, biological, and biochemical evidence, that is all. Scientists looked at the evidence and saw that it supported the theory of evolution.

The problem is a matter of belief. Creationism requires a God in order for it to work. There is no evidence to establish that God exists, so scientists don't include that idea into their theories. Then some people go around yelling about how evolution is "godless". All science is "godless", because there is no proof that God exists.

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo

I had a feeling you wouldn't understand my examples of the arrays DOG() and LIFE(). That's OK. Let me try again:

Let DOG(n) = 3

Let the number 3 = "Chow Chow" (or even all "dogs")

Let x = 0.000001

Let 0.000001 = the "changes" of each generation of the population of "Chows" (or "dogs," if you like)

Now follow the ancesrty of the Chow Chow ("dogs"), and for each iteration of the array the value will correspondingly decrease by x.

DOG(n - 1) = 3 - 1x or 2.999999 (which is very, very close to 3; for almost all "practical" purposes 2.999999 can function as 3 can)

DOG(n - 2) = 3 - 2x or 2.999998 (still very close to 3)
.
.
.
DOG(n - 1,000,000) = 2


Now try real hard to forget that the name of the array is DOG() and concentrate on the FACT that DOG(n) = 3 and DOG(n - 1,000,000) = 2. If we are to maintain any sense of rationality and hope (and sanity, I suggest), we must admit that 2 does not equal 3.

So, when we use the word "dog" to refer to "Chows" and "Beagles," it is very close to the same idea I have outlined above. That is, the word "dog" would represent the numbers "around 3" and "Chow Chow" might be something like the value 3.000001 and "Beagle" something like the value 3.00001.

This explanation, I admit, is a gross oversimplification, but it nevertheless conveys the basic concept of evolution and demonstrates the fallacy that "at some point" "dogs" become "non-dogs." If someone wants to pin down "when" the change "happens" they completely misunderstand evolution and its power to create change through subtle differences in populations.

The fact is that the "change happens" every time a member of the "species" in question reproduces. It's that simple.

Don't get me wrong, brother Willi, I am not trying to make you believe in evolution. I am simply trying to demonstrate what evolution is really all about so those of us who are Christians and care deeply about arguing against the "truth" of evolution will understand the very thing they argue against and not some limp strawman theory in their imagination.

As you can tell, I accept the fact that the history of life transpired in a way that reflects the broad theory of biological evolution.
I understand just fine what evolutionist believe
and i think we are saying the same thing.
or do you disagree with this
(A)
(A1)
(A2)
(A3) becoming (B), (B1), (B2)
(A4)

now (C) can come from (A) group or (B) group
that is how evolution works according to the wacky theory

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by tseeker

The problem with this argument is that it ignores the superior authority of the one who created the universe and life, and He told us the straight scoop. Once one recognizes what the truth is then it is almost child's play to see the fallacies in "naturalistic" origin theories.
Do I understand you correctly to be referring to the Bible, namely Genesis 1 and 2?

If so, have you ever considered that Genesis 1 is really "God's way" of teaching or even "proving," if you like, to the ancient Israelites that He created the "heavens and the earth?" And, that this teaching of "God's" stands in contrast to the even more ancient creation story that taught the creation is a result of gods battling each other, gods like Tiamat and Marduk?
Originally posted by tseeker

You should try bowing down to God instead of other men. Once you really do this in earnest you may then be able to see as a child, and recognize that evolution is nothing more than a modern revival of the age old lie which deceived all ancient cultures which turned their backs on God.
If I read certain portions of the Enuma Elish to a child and then read Genesis 1 to the same child, I have little doubt that that child will see the similarities.

Beginning of Enuma Elish:

When in the height heaven was not named,
And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
And the primeval Apsu, who begat them,
And chaos, Tiamut, the mother of them both
Their waters were mingled together,
And no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen;
When of the gods none had been called into being,
And none bore a name, and no destinies were ordained;
Then were created the gods in the midst of heaven,
Lahmu and Lahamu were called into being...
Ages increased,...
Then Ansar and Kisar were created, and over them....
Long were the days, then there came forth.....

Sound familiar?

Read Genesis 1:1-8

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Greywolf

Wrong. Evolution is a scientific theory based on fossil, biological, and biochemical evidence, that is all. Scientists looked at the evidence and saw that it supported the theory of evolution.

The problem is a matter of belief. Creationism requires a God in order for it to work. There is no evidence to establish that God exists, so scientists don't include that idea into their theories. Then some people go around yelling about how evolution is "godless". All science is "godless", because there is no proof that God exists.
its all about conclusions Greywolf
evolutionist see no God, so they try to explain all life in a natural way.
creationist see a God.
we each have our own form of POOF

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by brother Willi
its all about conclusions Greywolf
evolutionist see no God, so they try to explain all life in a natural way.
creationist see a God.
we each have our own form of POOF

The problem is, that creationists want to base a scientific theory on a concept (God) that has no evidence to support it. Science doesn't work that way.

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo

Do I understand you correctly to be referring to the Bible, namely Genesis 1 and 2?

If so, have you ever considered that Genesis 1 is really "God's way" of teaching or even "proving," if you like, to the ancient Israelites that He created the "heavens and the earth?" And, that this teaching of "God's" stands in contrast to the even more ancient creation story that taught the creation is a result of gods battling each other, gods like Tiamat and Marduk?

If I read certain portions of the Enuma Elish to a child and then read Genesis 1 to the same child, I have little doubt that that child will see the similarities.

Beginning of Enuma Elish:

When in the height heaven was not named,
And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
And the primeval Apsu, who begat them,
And chaos, Tiamut, the mother of them both
Their waters were mingled together,
And no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen;
When of the gods none had been called into being,
And none bore a name, and no destinies were ordained;
Then were created the gods in the midst of heaven,
Lahmu and Lahamu were called into being...
Ages increased,...
Then Ansar and Kisar were created, and over them....
Long were the days, then there came forth.....

Sound familiar?

Read Genesis 1:1-8
its all about record keeping.
we all come from 1 family

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by Greywolf

The problem is, that creationists want to base a scientific theory on a concept (God) that has no evidence to support it. Science doesn't work that way.

evolution: based of evidence

faith: based on God

God: based on...?

Uh oh, do I hear the footsteps of the ontological argument approaching?

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Greywolf

The problem is, that creationists want to base a scientific theory on a concept (God) that has no evidence to support it. Science doesn't work that way.
we all see the same evidence.
please dont say there is proof for the evolutionist form of POOF

the evidence can fit the evolutionists model, or the creationists modal.
we both use POOF

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo
evolution: based of evidence

faith: based on God

God: based on...?

Uh oh, do I hear the footsteps of the ontological argument approaching?

I see it more as

evolution: based on evidence

faith: based on nothing

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by brother Willi

its all about record keeping.
we all come from 1 family

Right. The human family, made in the image of God.

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by brother Willi
we all see the same evidence.
please dont say there is proof for the evolutionist form of POOF

No proof, just evidence.

Originally posted by brother Willi
the evidence can fit the evolutionists model, or the creationists modal.
we both use POOF

There is evidence that life could have formed from its basic components. There is no evidence of the existance of a God.

[tseeker]

I am glad someone brought up the creation stories from cultures than rejected the true God and hence believed that even their gods were created "naturally".

Any successful shady salesperson always starts by saying some things that sound familiar as being truth, before then proposing something that isn't, in order to deceive the unwary.

The greatest shady salesman of all first deceived Eve and then Adam in turn.

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by Greywolf

faith: based on nothing

Sometimes.

Christian faith: based on God in Jesus

And Jesus ain't nothing!

Even according to Zakath Jesus is a "dead rabbi." And a dead rabbi still ain't "nothing."

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Greywolf

I see it more as

evolution: based on evidence

faith: based on nothing
I see it more as

evolution: based on a naturally occurring POOF (no evidence)

creation: based on a God created POOF (no evidence)

but with no real solid evidence, whos POOF is better.
the Bible says creation

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo
Christian faith: based on God in Jesus

And Jesus ain't nothing!

Even according to Zakath Jesus is a "dead rabbi." And a dead rabbi still ain't "nothing."

Christian faith: based on the belief that Jesus was the son of God.

[tseeker]

BTW, when I first looked at abiogenesis theories some 20 years ago there was some slim possibility that cells might have come about "naturally".

Since that time there have been so many discoveries regarding the amzing operations going on inside cells that the chance of this coming about "naturally" now ranges somewhere from zero to nothing.

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by Greywolf

Christian faith: based on the belief that Jesus was the son of God.

Amen! :thumb:

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Greywolf

No proof, just evidence.



There is evidence that life could have formed from its basic components. There is no evidence of the existance of a God.
just as there is evidence that a bunch of words blown by the wind can create a book
or a explosion can create a building
but you dont believe in that happening.
why is that?

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by tseeker

BTW, when I first looked at abiogenesis theories some 20 years ago there was some slim possibility that cells might have come about "naturally".

Since that time there have been so many discoveries regarding the amzing operations going on inside cells that the chance of this coming about "naturally" now ranges somewhere from zero to nothing.
agreed:thumb:
i see they are now trying to reduce the cell down to the most important parts to see if it can live and reproduce.
no luck so far

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by tseeker
BTW, when I first looked at abiogenesis theories some 20 years ago there was some slim possibility that cells might have come about "naturally".

Since that time there have been so many discoveries regarding the amzing operations going on inside cells that the chance of this coming about "naturally" now ranges somewhere from zero to nothing.

Do you think that abiogenesis theories says that fully formed, eukaryotic cells just appeared?

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by Greywolf

Do you think that abiogenesis theories says that fully formed, eukaryotic cells just appeared?

Of course they do.

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Greywolf

Do you think that abiogenesis theories says that fully formed, eukaryotic cells just appeared?
nope, they try to point to RNA i think, then POOFING happened to get to a cell.
no evidence for any POOFING

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by tseeker

I am glad someone brought up the creation stories from cultures than rejected the true God and hence believed that even their gods were created "naturally".

Any successful shady salesperson always starts by saying some things that sound familiar as being truth, before then proposing something that isn't, in order to deceive the unwary.

The greatest shady salesman of all first deceived Eve and then Adam in turn.
Are you implying that the Enuma Elish was somehow inspired by the Adversary to deceive people from the truth of Genesis 1?

[aharvey]

Originally posted by tseeker
Since you have just admitted that evolutionists cannot explain everything, why do you insist that creationists have to explain everything?

I do so want to stay on message, but I ... can't ... resist...

1) Check the post you quoted above. I certainly didn't say evolutionists can't explain everything.
2) Now, however, I WILL say it: evolutionists can't explain everything. Who can? Any theory that purports to explain everything probably explains nothing usefully.
3) (Okay, back on message). You can't seriously think that from my original query, I'm expecting creationists to explain everything! I'll be happy to get some relevant information for my one thing! (i.e, at what point do creationists think evolutionary models fail at explaining decreasing genetic similarity?)

Originally posted by tseeker
If you think that determining a species is, in many cases, not just a matter of opinion , then you know less about evolutionary theory than I thought.

Although I'm not strictly a taxonomist by trade, I have described over a dozen new species of crustaceans, and just finished teaching a Systematic Biology course in which we spent several weeks of in-depth coverage of the various species concepts. So I actually do have some firsthand and nontrivial experience with these issues. And in any case, I did not say that species limits are not just a matter of opinion (although I don't think it's true that species determinations are "just a matter of opinion," that's off-topic). Let me reword what I actually said: The range of "species" concepts 1) have more biological justification to them, and 2) are more likely to agree with each other on taxon limits, compared to the range of creationist definitions of "kind." That is, any problems species definitions have pale in comparison to those of "kind" definitions.

Originally posted by tseeker
Whether creationists have a good definition of "kind" or not has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of the matter.

Maybe. It depends on whether your inability to narrow the zone of controversy beyond "somewhere between siblings and origin of life" (= dependent variable) is a result of the arbitrariness of the "created kind" (= independent variable). That was just a hypothesis based on an earlier post. I'm open to other explanations.

[cur_deus_homo]

POOF! There go all of my yellow stars! God changed them into one purple star. (post 101)

Oh, wait. It's just an occurrence of base ten enumeration.

[brother Willi]

aharvey , the theory falls on its face when every step needs a POOF to happen.

adaptation we all agree on

adaptation does not explain many things

what the evolutionist sees as a step in evolution is explained with POOF

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo

POOF! There go all of my yellow stars! God changed them into one purple star. (post 101)

Oh, wait. It's just an occurrence of base ten enumeration.
congratulations:thumb:

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by brother Willi
just as there is evidence that a bunch of words blown by the wind can create a book
or a explosion can create a building
but you dont believe in that happening.
why is that?

Scientists have observed the formation of organic compounds, the linking of monomers to form polymers (protein formation), and the formation of selectively permeable membranes. The poof, in the case of abiogenesis, was the laws of chemistry.

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by brother Willi
nope, they try to point to RNA i think, then POOFING happened to get to a cell.
no evidence for any POOFING

They have also observed the formation of selectively permeable membranes and proteins.

The "poofing" was the laws of chemistry at work.

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by brother Willi
aharvey , the theory falls on its face when every step needs a POOF to happen.

adaptation we all agree on

adaptation does not explain many things

what the evolutionist sees as a step in evolution is explained with POOF

Which evolutionary steps do you see as being a POOF?

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by aharvey

at what point do creationists think evolutionary models fail at explaining decreasing genetic similarity

At the point when God went POOF!

Someone mentioned this, I think, in like the fourth post of this thread.

Michael Behe and others of his ilk are working feverishly in their god-of-the-gaps zoo trying to reproduce the near-extinct species of scientific creationism to a sizeable population for insertion into the marketplace environment of ideas. I am afraid that what they are really doing is genetically engineering a chimera species of biology and theology, and this chimera species will, no doubt, attract the interest of many lay people in the same way Frankenstein attracted the interest of the crowds.

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by brother Willi
I see it more as

evolution: based on a naturally occurring POOF (no evidence)

creation: based on a God created POOF (no evidence)

but with no real solid evidence, whos POOF is better.
the Bible says creation

There is evidence supporting evolution though, that's the difference.

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Greywolf

The "poofing" was the laws of chemistry at work.
binding energies
Gods handywork:D

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by brother Willi
binding energies
Gods handywork:D

Just like the strong and weak nuclear forces. :D

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Greywolf

There is evidence supporting evolution though, that's the difference.
you can say that all you want, it still dont make it true

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by brother Willi
you can say that all you want, it still dont make it true

What would you consider to be evidence (not proof, but evidence) of evolution?

[aharvey]

Originally posted by brother Willi

I see it more as

evolution: based on a naturally occurring POOF (no evidence)

creation: based on a God created POOF (no evidence)

but with no real solid evidence, whos POOF is better.
the Bible says creation

See, this attitude is what got me started on this whole line of thought. When you say there is "no evidence for evolution," you must be talking about some other version of evolution than the one studied by evolutionary biologists. Are you referring to any form of descent with modification? Are you talking about abiogenesis? These and everything in between? Some subset of this above? If so, which subset? If I'm not mistaken, none of the YEC stories I've read lately invoke evolution (indeed, they're presented as stark counterpoints), but all require the actual process of evolution, at far more spectacular rates than any evolutionary biologist would propose. No matter how you slice it, you need a lot of evolutionary change to move from 8000 species on the Ark to our estimated current 5 million species in just 4400 years.

So I'm still perplexed when I hear there is "no evidence for evolution," and I'm still convinced that we can refine and focus the discussion by identifying the real discrepancy, but I'm still waiting for someone on "the other side" to be willing to help find it.

[aharvey]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo

At the point when God went POOF!

Someone mentioned this, I think, in like the fourth post of this thread.



Yeah, got that. Call me naive, but I'm hoping to convince someone that that's not really an answer.

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by aharvey

Yeah, got that. Call me naive, but I'm hoping to convince someone that that's not really an answer.

Sorry. If only we had "met" about seven years ago I could have been such a person for you. :)

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by aharvey

So I'm still perplexed when I hear there is "no evidence for evolution," and I'm still convinced that we can refine and focus the discussion by identifying the real discrepancy, but I'm still waiting for someone on "the other side" to be willing to help find it.

The "real" discrepancy is the one between one imagination and the other. Here's another metaphor...

Creation-ISM: Digitally reproducing a Britney Spears CD will always give you another Britney Spears CD.

Evolution: The enironmental pressure of the music industry on the reproduction of Britney Spears's music works its way into a phenomenon known as "American Idol" (punctuated equilibrium), which in turn leads to the emergence of other pop stars like Clay Aiken, who are definitenly not Britney Spears, but the relation is still evident nonetheless.

Can I "prove" that the reproduction of Britney led to Clay? No. But the evidence is there and is overwhelming.

[tseeker]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by aharvey

See, this attitude is what got me started on this whole line of thought. When you say there is "no evidence for evolution," you must be talking about some other version of evolution than the one studied by evolutionary biologists. Are you referring to any form of descent with modification? Are you talking about abiogenesis? These and everything in between? Some subset of this above? If so, which subset? If I'm not mistaken, none of the YEC stories I've read lately invoke evolution (indeed, they're presented as stark counterpoints), but all require the actual process of evolution, at far more spectacular rates than any evolutionary biologist would propose. No matter how you slice it, you need a lot of evolutionary change to move from 8000 species on the Ark to our estimated current 5 million species in just 4400 years.[quote]


There might have been as many as 8000 animal types on the Ark, who knows?

But surely an evolutionarily informed person like yourself must know that there are only about 20,000 animal species extant today?

[brother Willi]

link provided by Statnerd

http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/index.html

from that link i found

http://www.bryancore.org/hdb/index.html

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by tseeker
But surely an evolutionarily informed person like yourself must know that there are only about 20,000 animal species extant today?

Actually there are a lot more.

So far scientists have named and classified more than 1 1/2 million animals.
Furthermore, there are currently about 1.5 to 1.8 million named species, but it is estimated that the actual number of species in the world ranges from 5 to 10 million (May et al. 1995).

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/FelixNisimov.shtml

[PureX]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo Creation-ISM: Digitally reproducing a Britney Spears CD will always give you another Britney Spears CD.

Evolution: The enironmental pressure of the music industry on the reproduction of Britney Spears's music works its way into a phenomenon known as "American Idol" (punctuated equilibrium), which in turn leads to the emergence of other pop stars like Clay Aiken, who are definitenly not Britney Spears, but the relation is still evident nonetheless.

Can I "prove" that the reproduction of Britney led to Clay? No. But the evidence is there and is overwhelming. Nice analogy! But I suspect it flew right over the heads of ....

[tseeker]

Originally posted by Greywolf
Actually there are a lot more.
url]http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/FelixNisimov.shtml[/url]

The species you reference are not relevant to the discussion. The animals which were saved on the Ark were the air-breathers.

[tseeker]

Greywolf must be an atheist because he is either purposely deceitful or else just plain stupid.

He "forgot" to include the rest of the quotation from his source:

So far scientists have named and classified more than 1 1/2 million animals. Over half of these are types of insects

Most of the others are not related to the air-breathers preserved on the Ark either.

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by tseeker
Greywolf must be an atheist because he is either purposely deceitful or else just plain stupid.

Agnostic.

Originally posted by tseeker
He "forgot" to include the rest of the quotation from his source:


So far scientists have named and classified more than 1 1/2 million animals. Over half of these are types of insects

Most of the others are not related to the air-breathers preserved on the Ark either.

Ah, I see. Here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=482585#post482585) I was just providing irrelevant information. But 11 minutes later, I'm either stupid or purposely being deceitful. Gotcha. :rolleyes:

[tseeker]

Originally posted by Greywolf

Ah, I see. Here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=482585#post482585) I was just providing irrelevant information. But 11 minutes later, I'm either stupid or purposely being deceitful. Gotcha. :rolleyes:

The subject was the air-breathing animals on the Ark and their current descendents.

These current descendents are arrayed in 20,000 current species.

You either deceptively or stupidly point people to a site which gives an estimate of all animal species, including insects among others.

So which is it: are you stupid or deceptive?

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by tseeker
The subject was the air-breathing animals on the Ark and their current descendents.

These current descendents are arrayed in 20,000 current species.

You either deceptively or stupidly point people to a site which gives an estimate of all animal species, including insects among others.

So which is it: are you stupid or deceptive?

I was merely providing information. I accidentally provided information that was not relevant to the topic being discussed.

[Sealeaf]

Pardon me for coming in late, but why argue whether the number of current species is three times the number that could have been on the arc or a hundred times more? If there is one more specie than whatever number is picked as an "arc-full" then evolution is proved. All it needs is one proven case for the theory to be proved. Or at least for the creationist case to be disproved. So just how many land dewelling, air breathing, species were on the arc? Let's settle this thing! At last here is a creationist claim that can be tested.

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by Sealeaf
Pardon me for coming in late, but why argue whether the number of current species is three times the number that could have been on the arc or a hundred times more? If there is one more specie than whatever number is picked as an "arc-full" then evolution is proved. All it needs is one proven case for the theory to be proved. Or at least for the creationist case to be disproved. So just how many land dewelling, air breathing, species were on the arc? Let's settle this thing! At last here is a creationist claim that can be tested.

:think: Excellent point.

[avatar382]

So I'm still perplexed when I hear there is "no evidence for evolution," and I'm still convinced that we can refine and focus the discussion by identifying the real discrepancy, but I'm still waiting for someone on "the other side" to be willing to help find it.

This is beginning of realizing an important point -

The fundamentalist does not hold YE Creationism to be true because he's analyzed all the options and found it to be the best one, he holds it to be true because he is forced to. I know this because I was once a fundamentalist and did it myself.

How is that so? Well, everything the fundamentalist believes to be true - their entire worldview - is utterly dependent on the literal truth of the Bible from Genesis to Apocalypse. If anything in the Bible is shown to be false - the entire house crumbles. When that house includes the beliefs and hopes you hold dear, the thought of it crumbling is a very scary propsition.

A scientist examining two different theories gives each one equal weight until the evidence favors one over the other. The fundamentalist pre-supposes the one he believes must be true, while intentionally looking to disprove the competitor. Hence, you have the origin of "Creation Science", men desperately seeking to maintain their faith in a time of science and knowledge, doing all they can to rationalize their beliefs to themselves.

I personally left the faith not because I found the views of evolution convincing at the time - but rather because my questioning of what was a relatively insignificant detail lead to conflict with my family/church friends, which lead to deeper questioning, afterwhich I uncovered a condradiction in my faith which split everything wide open. Mind you - I did not let go of my faith easily. I desperately wanted to keep it and I fought for every inch tooth and nail! However the end result was inevitable and it all came out for the better - I am happier now than I ever was before.

The point of all this? IMHO is it almost always pointless to argue with a Creationist. Creationism is merely one of many symptoms of a much larger "disease".

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by PureX

Nice analogy! But I suspect it flew right over the heads of ....
NOPE, I just dont agree with it

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Sealeaf

Pardon me for coming in late, but why argue whether the number of current species is three times the number that could have been on the arc or a hundred times more? If there is one more specie than whatever number is picked as an "arc-full" then evolution is proved. All it needs is one proven case for the theory to be proved. Or at least for the creationist case to be disproved. So just how many land dewelling, air breathing, species were on the arc? Let's settle this thing! At last here is a creationist claim that can be tested.
do creationist argue that variety within a Genus is not possible?? NO!!!

the arguement is that dogs being able to produce a variety of dogs, does not prove they will ever produce a NON-DOG

and you can sugar coat the truth any way you like.
that is exactly what evolution teaches

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by avatar382
The fundamentalist does not hold YE Creationism to be true because he's analyzed all the options and found it to be the best one,

What makes you think that?

he holds it to be true because he is forced to. I know this because I was once a fundamentalist and did it myself.

Did what -- force yourself to believe in young Earth creationism? You could have just come to a rational conclusion by analyzing the evidence. That's what many of us have done.

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by avatar382

This is beginning of realizing an important point -

The fundamentalist does not hold YE Creationism to be true because he's analyzed all the options and found it to be the best one, he holds it to be true because he is forced to. I know this because I was once a fundamentalist and did it myself.

How is that so? Well, everything the fundamentalist believes to be true - their entire worldview - is utterly dependent on the literal truth of the Bible from Genesis to Apocalypse. If anything in the Bible is shown to be false - the entire house crumbles. When that house includes the beliefs and hopes you hold dear, the thought of it crumbling is a very scary propsition.

A scientist examining two different theories gives each one equal weight until the evidence favors one over the other. The fundamentalist pre-supposes the one he believes must be true, while intentionally looking to disprove the competitor. Hence, you have the origin of "Creation Science", men desperately seeking to maintain their faith in a time of science and knowledge, doing all they can to rationalize their beliefs to themselves.

I personally left the faith not because I found the views of evolution convincing at the time - but rather because my questioning of what was a relatively insignificant detail lead to conflict with my family/church friends, which lead to deeper questioning, afterwhich I uncovered a condradiction in my faith which split everything wide open. Mind you - I did not let go of my faith easily. I desperately wanted to keep it and I fought for every inch tooth and nail! However the end result was inevitable and it all came out for the better - I am happier now than I ever was before.

The point of all this? IMHO is it almost always pointless to argue with a Creationist. Creationism is merely one of many symptoms of a much larger "disease".

avatar, the one and only duty evolutionists have is to prove how everything happened naturally.
do not think evolution is not biased, it is!!!

an evolutionist will make the evidence fit a preconceived idea.
there is no difference between a creation scientist, and an evolution scientist, exept the preconceived idea on how things started

and the evidence fits creation VERY WELL

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by avatar382

I know this because I was once a fundamentalist and did it myself.
...
Mind you - I did not let go of my faith easily. I desperately wanted to keep it and I fought for every inch tooth and nail!

I mean this with the best of intentions, but it sounds like your faith was built on sand instead of on the solid rock of Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, the Living Christ. It's too bad your church and background apparently did not prepare you for even the rather puny assualts on Christian faith made by people with a naturalistic axe to grind.

Testimonies like yours are the most disturbing indictments of present-day Christianity in the so-called "developed" world. It's no wonder that where Christianity is really growing strong is in countries where people know suffering and thus the need for kindness and faith; these are the roots of Christianity.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by brother Willi
...there is no difference between a creation scientist, and an evolution scientist, exept the preconceived idea on how things startedActually the greatest difference is that creationists are that way because of religious belief, not scientific investigation. Evolutionists, on the other hand, are not that way due to their religious beliefs.

If creationism were based on coherent science, then atheist scientists would be converting, willy nilly. Look around you... do you see that happening? :think:

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by brother Willi

the arguement is that dogs being able to produce a variety of dogs, does not prove they will ever produce a NON-DOG

Still hung up on the "name thang," I see.

Go back to my example of the array DOG() and pick any element of the array from 0 to n (or 1,000,000), say, 321,608. Now call DOG(321,608) a "dog" and DOG(321,607) a "non-dog." Does that satisfy you? No, of course it won't, because you'll look at one particular animal in the population of DOG(321,608) and call it a "dog" because it looks like a "dog," yet DOG(321,607) also looks like a "dog." Nevertheless, this example demonstrates the ridiculous nature of thinking that "at some point" a non-dog becomes a dog.

DOG(0) DOES NOT "become" DOG(1,000,000)! Yes, DOG(0) "becomes" DOG(1), but what you seem to misunderstand is that DOG(0) is a population of animals that reproduces to create the population of DOG(1). Evolution is about genetic "drift" in populations, not the digitally perfect reproduction of parents.

If you admit there can be evolutionary change within a "genus," which you did admit to, then you are already a full-blown evolutionist because the word genus means a "taxonomic group containing one or more species."

As I said early on in this discussion, please try and get over words like "species," "genus," "phyla," and the like. These are taxonomic words that are employed by zoologists and biologists to categorize, nothing more, nothing less. These words have no bearing on the fixity or reality of some kind of aristotelian animal types.

[Jukia]

All of you well-meaning evolutionists are pounding your heads against a wall. You all have to overcome willi's statement "the evidence fits creation VERY WELL". Don't bother trying to explain science to willi or try to show him that he is wrong (and he is wrong), unless you can show a dog actually changing into a non-dog in a particular experiment don't waste your breath or your posts. That is what he wants, that is about the only thing that will convince him. It is not going to happen so don't bother. Just keep an eye out for him or someone like him on your local school board and an attempt to add Intelligent Design to the school curriculum.

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by Jukia

Don't bother trying to explain science to willi

But from a Christian point of view I am afraid that people like willi (see avatar's post) will be forced to flee the building they've constructed on poor foundations when it starts to fall in on them and then they'll wind up "homeless" or they'll find another home where Christ is not the foundation.

[Aussie Thinker]

Avatar,

The point of all this? IMHO is it almost always pointless to argue with a Creationist. Creationism is merely one of many symptoms of a much larger "disease".

Yet YOU managed to overcome the fundamentalists disease… that is why we continue to hope that others can too.

Cur-deus-homo,

Geez I like your way of thinking.

If all Christians/Deists thought like you I would shut up and go away.. lol

You made the point just before I did.. the Fundies pose MORE of a threat to Christianity and its real message than any atheist like me.

When Guys like Willi (although he is prob to old to change) and OEJ realise evolution is true their entire faith will collapse as it is based on the flimsy “bedrock” of the literal truth of the Bible (or their interpretation of).

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Jukia

All of you well-meaning evolutionists are pounding your heads against a wall. You all have to overcome willi's statement "the evidence fits creation VERY WELL". The statement is a bit vague. Perhaps if he could describe what he means by "fits very well" we could provide some insight. :think:

[tseeker]

tseeker asked: "So which is it: are you stupid or deceptive?"

To which Greywolf relied:

"I was merely providing information. I accidentally provided information that was not relevant to the topic being discussed."

I take that as an admission of stupidity.

[Aussie Thinker]

Tseeker,

The answer which Grey Wolf alluded to was “neither”.. but perhaps we should inform him that you need VERY simple explanations in future.

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Zakath

Actually the greatest difference is that creationists are that way because of religious belief, not scientific investigation. Evolutionists, on the other hand, are not that way due to their religious beliefs.
Not at all, The more I study, the more I see how much FAITH it takes to believe in evolution as the reason I am here today.
Evolution is explained by POOF it happened.
the difference is, evolutionist expect to one day discover these POOFS happened naturally



If creationism were based on coherent science, then atheist scientists would be converting, willy nilly. Look around you... do you see that happening? :think:

explain to my why every scientist is not an atheist

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo

But from a Christian point of view I am afraid that people like willi (see avatar's post) will be forced to flee the building they've constructed on poor foundations when it starts to fall in on them and then they'll wind up "homeless" or they'll find another home where Christ is not the foundation.
dont be afraid for me.
my foundation is on solid rock

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo

Still hung up on the "name thang," I see.

Go back to my example of the array DOG() and pick any element of the array from 0 to n (or 1,000,000), say, 321,608. Now call DOG(321,608) a "dog" and DOG(321,607) a "non-dog." Does that satisfy you? No, of course it won't, because you'll look at one particular animal in the population of DOG(321,608) and call it a "dog" because it looks like a "dog," yet DOG(321,607) also looks like a "dog." Nevertheless, this example demonstrates the ridiculous nature of thinking that "at some point" a non-dog becomes a dog.
I dont think you understand.
I will use numbers since you like them.

CANIDAE= let say 5.0000 to 5.9999
now tell me what was 1.0000?
if you say a CANIDAE, then why not Felidae?

What was the first living cell?
will you say CANIDAE?

do you understand my point?



DOG(0) DOES NOT "become" DOG(1,000,000)! Yes, DOG(0) "becomes" DOG(1), but what you seem to misunderstand is that DOG(0) is a population of animals that reproduces to create the population of DOG(1). Evolution is about genetic "drift" in populations, not the digitally perfect reproduction of parents.

and strangely here you do understand my point


If you admit there can be evolutionary change within a "genus," which you did admit to, then you are already a full-blown evolutionist because the word genus means a "taxonomic group containing one or more species."


did you click on the link i posted in this thread?

As I said early on in this discussion, please try and get over words like "species," "genus," "phyla," and the like. These are taxonomic words that are employed by zoologists and biologists to categorize, nothing more, nothing less. These words have no bearing on the fixity or reality of some kind of aristotelian animal types.
Yep, thats what taxonomy is all about .
Fitting organisms into a scheme, from I think kingdom to species.
but as new things are learned, these schemes change dont they.
:think: maybe its all guess work.
and it is the job of evolutionists to try and prove "this" became "this":think:

to much evolutionary POOFING, no proof!!!

[Aussie Thinker]

BW,

Not at all, The more I study, the more I see how much FAITH it takes to believe in evolution as the reason I am here today.

Which clearly shows you are NOT studying and just accepting incorrect assumptions form people with obvious agendas.

Evolution is explained by POOF it happened.

Um… are you really on the right track here.. sure .. Poof .. a few hundred million years and billions of small changes.. etc …

POOF would refer to something INSTANT.. sorta like.. “God did it”

the difference is, evolutionist expect to one day discover these POOFS happened naturally

Let me ask you something BW.. please name for me ONE thing that has been shown scientifically to happen supernaturally. If you can I will shut up…

As it stands EVERTHING EVER known has been known to have a natural occurrence.. doesn’t it make sense for a normal human with normal human logic to assume all thing unknown will ALSO have a natural origin ?

explain to my why every scientist is not an atheist

That is because most religious belief do NOT revolve around your strange ridiculous literal fundamentalist creationist ideas ! But then I guess you could add well that still leaves a (very) few scientists who do hold these ideas anyway…

They are ALL unqualified or have allowed faith to override their normal sense.. or just plain stupid !

dont be afraid for me.
my foundation is on solid rock

The ROCK is ignorance of reality.. at your age you are probably safe.. but 20 years from now creationists will be considered as ridiculous as Flat Earthers. (they mostly are now)

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker

Which clearly shows you are NOT studying and just accepting incorrect assumptions form people with obvious agendas.

i study what you have to say.
so, what was your point?



Um… are you really on the right track here.. sure .. Poof .. a few hundred million years and billions of small changes.. etc …

POOF would refer to something INSTANT.. sorta like.. “God did it”

Poof .. a few hundred million years , is a POOF
and billions of small changes, POOF


Let me ask you something BW.. please name for me ONE thing that has been shown scientifically to happen supernaturally. If you can I will shut up…

look in the mirror, look at everything around you.

has science proven it POOFED naturally? NO



As it stands EVERTHING EVER known has been known to have a natural occurrence.. doesn’t it make sense for a normal human with normal human logic to assume all thing unknown will ALSO have a natural origin ?

and you say this why?
because you MUST believe it happened naturally, not because it is proven.
what other option does an atheist have?

[Aussie Thinker]

BW,

I ask for one supernatural thing and I get

look in the mirror, look at everything around you. has science proven it POOFED naturally? NO

I see a creature that grew from the combination of egg and sperm from a male and female of the same species. COMPLETELY NATURAL.

Science has PROVED this is a completely natural formation

and you say this why?
because you MUST believe it happened naturally, not because it is proven.
what other option does an atheist have?

You can’t or don’t want to listen to what I am saying.. you think it must be some religion on my behalf…

Just digest this simple fact…

Everything so far KNOWN has had a natural origin.. Do you get that .. it is INDISPUTABLE FACT !

There are a lot of things that are UNKNOWN.. do you get that ?

If everything ever known has a natural origin.. why would you assume that any of the unknown things would SUDDENLY have a supernatural origin ???

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS ???

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker

I see a creature that grew from the combination of egg and sperm from a male and female of the same species. COMPLETELY NATURAL.

Science has PROVED this is a completely natural formation

no, what you as an atheist sees is non living matter going POOF, and starting to become RNA.
but you dont know how.
then POOF it became sexual from asexual, but you dont know how.
then millions of POOFS, and now you see yourself



You can’t or don’t want to listen to what I am saying.. you think it must be some religion on my behalf…

Just digest this simple fact…

Everything so far KNOWN has had a natural origin.. Do you get that .. it is INDISPUTABLE FACT !

There are a lot of things that are UNKNOWN.. do you get that ?

If everything ever known has a natural origin.. why would you assume that any of the unknown things would SUDDENLY have a supernatural origin ???

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS ???
it is only an "INDISPUTABLE FACT" because you MUST believe so, you as an atheist have no other option.
when will you understand this fact?

[aharvey]

Wow, go away for a weekend and look what happens!

Originally posted by brother Willi

avatar, the one and only duty evolutionists have is to prove how everything happened naturally.


All we have to do is prove (something otherwise only possible for mathematical theorems) that everything happened naturally?! Although it seems implicit in creationist literature, I never thought I'd hear a creationist explicitly admit this. Suffice it to say that in no other avenue of scientific inquiry is a theory required to prove anything, much less everything.

And then there's...

Originally posted by tseeker

But surely an evolutionarily informed person like yourself must know that there are only about 20,000 animal species extant today?

...(and then, in a reply to Greywolf)...
The species you reference are not relevant to the discussion. The animals which were saved on the Ark were the air-breathers.

I can say with some confidence that all terrestrial animals (which does include the million or so known species of insects and other terrestrial invertebrates) are air-breathers. Perhaps you mean to suggest that Noah only worried about terrestrial vertebrates (i.e., reptiles, birds, and mammals; not sure where you would stand on amphibians). I must confess, this is the first time I've heard that invertebrates were not saved on the Ark, which does then raise the question of where they came from. But in any case, Sealeaf hit the nail on the head by observing that evolution must have occurred whether the number of current species is two or two hundred times as large as the number saved on the Ark.

And, last but not least, in a reply to Sealeaf:

Originally posted by brother Willi

do creationist argue that variety within a Genus is not possible?? NO!!!


In fact, they do argue about this (see references in the Wood et al. paper I cited earlier), but I'm pleased that you don't have a problem with this. I assume, however, that you realize that one ancestral species producing more than one (sometimes hundreds!) of descendant species, each one inheriting much from their ancestors (i.e., descent from a common ancestor...) but each with its own distinct differences (...with modification), is called evolution!

So, yes, it's back to my original question: if you don't have a problem with evolution within a genus, then where does the problem begin?

[Zakath]

Originally posted by brother Willi

Not at all, The more I study, the more I see how much FAITH it takes to believe in evolution as the reason I am here today.Perhaps faith is the word, but it need not be religious faith. People of all faiths, even atheists can believe in evolution.

Evolution is explained by POOF it happened.That type of simplistic viewpoint (and expression) is typical of religion, not science. All you've done is substitute "POOF" for the standard creationist "goddidit". ;)

as simplistic a view as claiming that the difference is, evolutionist expect to one day discover these POOFS happened naturallyThus far, all the POOFS (i.e. gaps) have been explained by natural events. I think that as we understand more about the universe that the remaining gaps will eventually be found to be explainable naturally, as well.

explain to my why every scientist is not an atheist Because some people derive siginificant comfort from their religious beliefs. They merely re-define deity to allow for compatibility with the most recent scientific findings...

[brother Willi]

aharvey, please look at this link.
this is a way of trying to find the original Biblical "kinds"

http://www.bryancore.org/hdb/index.html

[tseeker]

Originally posted by aharvey

I can say with some confidence that all terrestrial animals (which does include the million or so known species of insects and other terrestrial invertebrates) are air-breathers.

Do you really believe that the Hebrew words in Genesis regarding air-breathers preserved on the Ark, two by two, included insects?

If so you are a fool. If not then you are a liar to include them in an analysis of Ark descendents.

So which is it? Are you a fool or a liar?

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by aharvey

In fact, they do argue about this (see references in the Wood et al. paper I cited earlier), but I'm pleased that you don't have a problem with this. I assume, however, that you realize that one ancestral species producing more than one (sometimes hundreds!) of descendant species, each one inheriting much from their ancestors (i.e., descent from a common ancestor...) but each with its own distinct differences (...with modification), is called evolution!

I have never heard creationist argue that all or most all within the Canidae or the Felidae are not of the same Biblical "kind"

can anyone prove Canidae and Felidae are descendant from a common ancestor?

[aharvey]

Originally posted by tseeker

Do you really believe that the Hebrew words in Genesis regarding air-breathers preserved on the Ark, two by two, included insects?

If so you are a fool. If not then you are a liar to include them in an analysis of Ark descendents.

So which is it? Are you a fool or a liar?

Well, neither, as far as I can tell. Until your earlier post, I hadn't really given it much thought. In my apparent naivete, I guess I'd just assumed that, since a global flood of Biblical proportions would have destroyed invertebrates as effectively as vertebrates, they'd've needed the sanctuary of the Ark as well. What's foolish or dishonest about that?

And if the Ark wasn't involved with the preservation of invertebrates, then what's the creationist explanation for the existence of millions of species of terrestrial invertebrates today? As an invertebrate zoologist, I'm genuinely intrigued.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by brother Willi

I have never heard creationist argue that all or most all within the Canidae or the Felidae are not of the same Biblical "kind" I've never even heard a sound definition of what a creationist means when they use the term "Biblical kind".

Any thoughts?

[tseeker]

Originally posted by aharvey

Well, neither, as far as I can tell. Until your earlier post, I hadn't really given it much thought. In my apparent naivete, I guess I'd just assumed that, since a global flood of Biblical proportions would have destroyed invertebrates as effectively as vertebrates,

Is this another example of your naivete? (emphasis added)

[Jukia]

tseeker: what is that last post supposed to show, other than perhaps you did not think of invertebrates either?
Were airbreathing invertebrates on the ark? Simple question, no?

[avatar382]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

What makes you think that?



Did what -- force yourself to believe in young Earth creationism? You could have just come to a rational conclusion by analyzing the evidence. That's what many of us have done.

Tell me honestly - is not the main source of the Creationist viewpoint the Bible itself?

That is - Creationism results from and utterly depends on a literal interpretation of the Bible - no Bible, no creationism...

Whether you will admit it or not, it is highly unlikely that anyone doing research into origins will arrive at Creationism as a solution unless they are using the Bible as a guide.

Creationism is a religious belief. Its main vehicle is faith. Whether you want to admit it or not: when it comes down to it, the average creationist really doesn't care what science says, they believe that God says Creationism is what happened, so they believe it, end of story.

When I was a Christian, I believed Creationism not because I read any arguments for or against it, but because it is in the Bible and through my faith I believed everything in the Bible to be true.

It didn't matter what science said. It didn't matter what anyone else said. It didn't matter what evidence was found. *I* knew the truth.

[tseeker]

Originally posted by Jukia

tseeker: what is that last post supposed to show, other than perhaps you did not think of invertebrates either?
Were airbreathing invertebrates on the ark? Simple question, no?

The answer is simple from a scriptural viewpoint, namely, Noah was not told to specifically place on the Ark things like snails, slugs, insects, spiders, i.e. invertebrates.

On the other hand I don't see how he could have prevented some of same from getting on board accidentally.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by tseeker

The answer is simple from a scriptural viewpoint, namely, Noah was not told to specifically place on the Ark things like snails, slugs, insects, spiders, i.e. invertebrates.

Hmmm... Near as I can tell, no animals were specifically mentioned in the story... :think:

1. According to Genesis (8:17), YHWH made the following promise:

I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.

So land dwelling insects wouldn not have been exempted from death in the flood.


2. YHWH then commanded Noah to bring two of every land creature aboard the ark:

"You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive."


3. In the following chapter, YHWH reiterates that all land animals - clean and unclean - were included...

"Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth."



So either Noah screwed up and disobeyed YHWH when he forgot the insects or Moses got it wrong when he wrote down the story...



Which explanation do you suppose is correct? :think:

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Zakath

I've never even heard a sound definition of what a creationist means when they use the term "Biblical kind".

Any thoughts?

http://www.nwcreation.net/biblicalkinds.html

[Jukia]

Tseeker: And that means what? That the terrestrial invertebrates we have today were? Noah's mistakes? God didn't think of them? Stowaways? How may beetle species are there now? How many "kinds" of beetles do you think got on board accidentally?

[Aussie Thinker]

Tseeker,

You have a great love of asking wether people are fools or liars…

I guess that is because you have a great swathe of both characteristics yourself ?

Aharvey CLEARLY showed you the ridiculousness of the creationist position in regard to the survival of insects and you answer… “are you’re a fool or a liar”..

Classic creationist scramble to avoid reality.

Brother Willi…

I am starting to wonder wether you can actually comprehend the MOST simple concept.

I stated (and Zak reiterated more eloquently) that EVERY thing ever known has had a natural origin. This is NOT a belief system, or something I wish was true.. it is an unassailable FACT.

To deny it you would have to present me something KNOWN to be supernatural, you attempt at this was.. “look in the mirror”.. well you may THINK we are supernatural but that is hardly something KNOWN.

[Jukia]

willi: that cite states "It is certain, givne the number of species alive today, that the Biblical kinds have speciated countless times since their reintroduction following the floof of Noah"
Sweet Lord, sounds like, God forgive me the heresy--evolution?

Am I missing something or am I supposed to ignore this, yet pay attention to something else in this site?

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker


Brother Willi…

I am starting to wonder wether you can actually comprehend the MOST simple concept.

I stated (and Zak reiterated more eloquently) that EVERY thing ever known has had a natural origin. This is NOT a belief system, or something I wish was true.. it is an unassailable FACT.


stop sayin it and prove your point.
I say you as an athiest MUST believe everything started naturally, YOU HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE.

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Jukia

willi: that cite states "It is certain, givne the number of species alive today, that the Biblical kinds have speciated countless times since their reintroduction following the floof of Noah"
Sweet Lord, sounds like, God forgive me the heresy--evolution?

Am I missing something or am I supposed to ignore this, yet pay attention to something else in this site?
Zatath ask, I found him a site.

as to your question.
Do creationists believe God created every species of dogs as a "kind"?
does it say each "species" is a Biblical "kind"?

NO
and
NO


wolves and dogs are in the same kind

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by avatar382

Tell me honestly - is not the main source of the Creationist viewpoint the Bible itself?

Ultimately, yes. What would you say the main source of the evolutionist viewpoint is?

That is - Creationism results from and utterly depends on a literal interpretation of the Bible - no Bible, no creationism...

Not necessarily. Christianity is hardly the only belief system that deals with origins.

Whether you will admit it or not, it is highly unlikely that anyone doing research into origins will arrive at Creationism as a solution unless they are using the Bible as a guide.

What exactly do you mean by 'as a guide,' and what would you say evolutionists use as a guide?

Creationism is a religious belief.

So is evolution.

Its main vehicle is faith.

Ditto.

Whether you want to admit it or not: when it comes down to it, the average creationist really doesn't care what science says,

Actually, it's popular opinion that generally doesn't impress us.

they believe that God says Creationism is what happened, so they believe it, end of story.

And if such a thing is true, then what's wrong with this?

When I was a Christian, I believed Creationism not because I read any arguments for or against it,

That figures.

but because it is in the Bible and through my faith I believed everything in the Bible to be true.

That's not a bad place to start, but it's just a start.

It didn't matter what science said.

Why didn't it?

It didn't matter what anyone else said.

Obviously, that doesn't matter much to me, either.

It didn't matter what evidence was found.

What evidence?

*I* knew the truth.

And you willfully rejected it. Congratulations.

[Jukia]

Jack: Evolution is not a religious belief. It does not depend on God.

willi: I am just a bit confused since that site dealing with "kinds" clearly seems to support evolution. Were you offering that site as some sort of support for the Biblical idea that God save "kinds" yet evolution remains godless nonsense?

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
So is evolution.

Evolution is not a religion.


re·li·gion
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Jukia

Jack: Evolution is not a religious belief.

Sure it is.

It does not depend on God.

No, but it is taken on faith.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Greywolf

Evolution is not a religion.

Of course it isn't. But it is a religious belief.

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by brother Willi
as to your question.
Do creationists believe God created every species?
does it say each "species" is a Biblical "kind"?

NO
and
NO

So if you have no problem with variety within a genus, why do you have a problem with variety within a family or within an order?

[Jukia]

No, it is taken on evidence.

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Of course it isn't. But it is a religious belief.

Sorry about the wording error.

Evolution is not a religious belief.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Jukia

No, it is taken on evidence.

What evidence?

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Greywolf

Sorry about the wording error.

No problem.

Evolution is not a religious belief.

Sure it is. It's accepted by faith -- just like any other religious belief.

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Greywolf

So if you have no problem with variety within a genus, why do you have a problem with variety within a family or within an order?

I have trouble with evolutions POOFS
to see a wolf is the same "kind" as a dog is easy, they can breed with each other.

Evolution clames a Hippo and Whale are descendent from each other.
think of the evolutionary POOF it took to put a breathing hole on top of the whales head.

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Sure it is. It's accepted by faith -- just like any other religious belief.
they just hate to admit they have faith dont they:chuckle:

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by brother Willi

they just hate to admit they have faith dont they:chuckle:

I guess they think faith is bad.

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Sure it is. It's accepted by faith -- just like any other religious belief.

Assuming for a second that were true, it would be a belief, not a religious belief.

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by brother Willi
I have trouble with evolutions POOFS
to see a wolf is the same "kind" as a dog is easy, they can breed with each other.

Evolution clames a Hippo and Whale are descendent from each other.
think of the evolutionary POOF it took to put a breathing hole on top of the whales head.

What do you think caused the variety within a kind?

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by brother Willi
Evolution clames a Hippo and Whale are descendent from each other.

Actually, I don't think evolution makes this claim. It does however, claim that these two animals share a common ancestor. But then again, it also claims that bananas and humans share a common ancestor...

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
I guess they think faith is bad.

I prefer knowledge.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Greywolf

Assuming for a second that were true, it would be a belief, not a religious belief.

You can call it whatever you like. It is what it is.