TheologyOnline, religion, politics, forum
Go Back   Theology Online | Christian Forums & More > Politics, Religion, And The Rest > Religion
Reload this Page Evolution - The Great Flood - Fish
Religion Discuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  (#76) Old
The Barbarian The Barbarian is offline
TOL Legend
 The Barbarian's Avatar

 


Reputation:
The Barbarian is well respected by his peers
The Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peersThe Barbarian is well respected by his peers
November 23rd, 2011, 10:24 PM

Quote:
Here's an explanation of the difference between adaptation and evolution everyone can (hopefully) grasp:
Well, this should be good...

Quote:
Adaptation = fresh-water fish adapting to live in salt-water (for example) or finches adapting beak shapes advantageous to their continued feeding on particular flowers. This indisputably happens. We can observe it scientifically by taking members of a well-established species and putting them in an environment radically different from their natural one. This is not a matter of a faith.
What do you think the mechanism for this is?

Quote:
Evolution = bacteria turning into fungi turning into reptiles turning into monkeys turning into us.
You've been badly misled. You hate a misconception, not real science. The theory of evolution does not say bacteria became fungi, or that fungi became reptiles, or reptiles became monkeys, or monkeys became us. Take some time to learn from a source who actually knows what the theory is about.

Quote:
There's still no proof of this; some decent evidence, maybe, but "proof" has a very specific definition which has yet to be satisfied by Darwinists.
"Proof" is not part of science. Science is mostly inductive, working by making inferences from evidence.

You've got a lot of things to catch up on, if you want to intelligently argue this issue. Libraries are free. Go learn what it's really about, and you'll be better equipped to fight it.





God bless us, every one.
"Or, the less the supportive data and the more declaration the greater the likelihood of horsefeathers." -TH
   
Reply With Quote
  (#77) Old
Sum1sGruj Sum1sGruj is offline
BANNED

 


Reputation:
Sum1sGruj is making a name for themselvesSum1sGruj is making a name for themselvesSum1sGruj is making a name for themselvesSum1sGruj is making a name for themselvesSum1sGruj is making a name for themselvesSum1sGruj is making a name for themselvesSum1sGruj is making a name for themselvesSum1sGruj is making a name for themselves
November 23rd, 2011, 10:32 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
Quote:
The supreme irony is that it seems to be the likes of people such as you who are misconstrue science. I know this because no matter how much one schools you or someone of your beliefs, you all just continue to say that we are the ones that misconstrue everything.
You've gotten this completely wrong. If you doubt that, I can show you what's actually in the literature.
No, you are just pretentious baggage that's all, trying to suckle at the teets of atheist claims to serve a composite standing.

Quote:
There's nothing circular about pointing out your misconceptions.
You haven't pointed out misconceptions, you have merely made the claim. In which case, you are now resorting to pretty much lying, which will likely try to be remedied by a straw man, which will eventually turn your argument into a moving goalpost. It's so predictable, I don't even know why I waste my time.

Quote:
Perhaps you don't know what "pretentious" means. It doesn't mean "acknowledging the limitations of science."
I know, it means being pervasive in your statements as if to impress others. In which case, you are ridiculously pretentious. The atheists on here deserve no such action, because they pervert and disrespect every single thread that has to do with creation and history. You giving a hand to that has nothing to do with any accuracy of knowledge, but rather your undying desire to be pretentious.

Quote:
You've been misled on that, too:

While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.
Cardinal Ratzinger, Chairman of the International Theological Comminssion,

Communion and Stewardship:
Human Persons Created in the Image of God

The July 2004 Vatican Statement on Creation and Evolution
Under the scrutiny that the Church endures and by extension has to keep ignorance happy, I'm not surprised. It's just too bad that scientists have not fully demonstrated such.

Quote:
He suggested that God created the first living things. Not a good way to encourage atheists.
Or, you mean people who believe everything came from nothing, and yet call miracles and plagues fairy tales. Such people are merely enslaved by their own convictions.

Quote:
They lied to you about that too, I'm afraid. The last sentence in the 1872 edition of The Origin of Species:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Who are 'they'? I'm the forefront of my knowledge, not 'them'., whoever they are.
Anyways, that's his opinion. His theory didn't say anything about billions of years. It's just his theory, his opinions, and obviously, his patchwork that makes up the 'Origin of Species'. It may as well be called 'Species Survive, an Interesting Side Effect of Death' (Credit to Statisticus, I can never get that out of my head when I think of Darwin now )

Quote:
Quote:
It appears I am not doing so, actually. Why don't you skim through these threads and see the atheists who have tried to claim science specifically to their atheism?
Name me one of those.
Sorry, but I need not waste time telling something that can so easily be observed following a click to the previous pages




Last edited by Sum1sGruj; November 23rd, 2011 at 11:23 PM..
   
Reply With Quote
  (#78) Old
Alate_One Alate_One is offline
Over 4000 post club
 Alate_One's Avatar

 


Reputation:
Alate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peers
November 23rd, 2011, 11:30 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperMonkey View Post
Adaptation = fresh-water fish adapting to live in salt-water (for example) or finches adapting beak shapes advantageous to their continued feeding on particular flowers.
Do you think this occurs at the individual level? That an individual fish can "make itself" able to survive in saltwater when it normally lives in fresh? Or a finch can simply use it's beak enough that it will change shape?

Quote:
This indisputably happens. We can observe it scientifically by taking members of a well-established species and putting them in an environment radically different from their natural one. This is not a matter of a faith.
If, you are asserting that this is genetic change that takes generations to happen, then you have just described evolution.

Quote:
Evolution = bacteria turning into fungi turning into reptiles turning into monkeys turning into us. There's still no proof of this; some decent evidence, maybe, but "proof" has a very specific definition which has yet to be satisfied by Darwinists.
You don't prove anything in science. Proof is the realm of mathematics. But what you've described is a typical creationist caricature of the common descent aspect of the theory of evolution. Fungi are not ancestral to any animal. But of any evolutionary relationship, that humans share a common ancestor with other primates, is really quite obvious.





“We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.

Some of the Evidence for Climate Change

The Biologos Foundation - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

What Darwin Never Knew
   
Reply With Quote
  (#79) Old
SuperMonkey SuperMonkey is offline
Veteran

 


Reputation:
SuperMonkey will become famous soon enoughSuperMonkey will become famous soon enoughSuperMonkey will become famous soon enoughSuperMonkey will become famous soon enough
November 23rd, 2011, 11:35 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
Well, this should be good...



What do you think the mechanism for this is?



You've been badly misled. You hate a misconception, not real science. The theory of evolution does not say bacteria became fungi, or that fungi became reptiles, or reptiles became monkeys, or monkeys became us. Take some time to learn from a source who actually knows what the theory is about.
I was simplifying things, obviously. I know that no one has ever claimed that we come from monkeys. If you want me to reword it so as not to confuse you, I will --

Things evolve and species change over time. This has been proven and can very often be observed within the lifespan of a single human being. What has not been observed, indeed in the entire history of humanity, is one species becoming another. It's never happened, as far as observation is concerned. Maybe it happened in eons past, but we have no solid irrefutable evidence for it.

Interspecies evolution has never been observed. That was my point. Way to miss the forest for the termites, though.





Deuteronomy 6:4-9, 11:13-21 Numbers 15:37-41


1 John 4:12-20
   
Reply With Quote
  (#80) Old
Alate_One Alate_One is offline
Over 4000 post club
 Alate_One's Avatar

 


Reputation:
Alate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peers
November 23rd, 2011, 11:37 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
Is that how you think the Hawaiian birds got to where they are?
They were blown there or possibly rafted there and then adaptive radiation took place.

Quote:
OK. Someone else made it up.
Read the book and you'll see the sources from which the author draws, writers of the period which bemoan the existence of too many species to fit on the ark. They came up with all sorts of crazy explanations for the data they were confronted with. YECs are just repeating ancient history, but unlike your historical counterparts, you're continuing to deny reality when there is far more data available to undermine your position. The amount of self deception required is really quite remarkable.

Quote:
There is a vast difference between evolution by random mutation & natural selection and adaptation by design. We understand why atheists must try to laugh away the distinction. But, fortunately, we have evidence. And the evidence says there is no mutation and there is no selection necessary in these cases.
You keep asserting this and never providing evidence. It's rather ironic when plenty of evidence has been provided to contradict your position, yet you still keep making the same assertions.





“We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.

Some of the Evidence for Climate Change

The Biologos Foundation - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

What Darwin Never Knew
   
Reply With Quote
  (#81) Old
SuperMonkey SuperMonkey is offline
Veteran

 


Reputation:
SuperMonkey will become famous soon enoughSuperMonkey will become famous soon enoughSuperMonkey will become famous soon enoughSuperMonkey will become famous soon enough
November 23rd, 2011, 11:42 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alate_One View Post
You keep asserting this and never providing evidence.
You're asking him to provide evidence for the fact that one species has never become another under scientifically observable conditions. You realize that's a negative, right?

I knew things would go horribly wrong once they got rid of Logic class in American high schools, but this is stunning.





Deuteronomy 6:4-9, 11:13-21 Numbers 15:37-41


1 John 4:12-20
   
Reply With Quote
  (#82) Old
Alate_One Alate_One is offline
Over 4000 post club
 Alate_One's Avatar

 


Reputation:
Alate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peers
November 23rd, 2011, 11:42 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperMonkey View Post
Interspecies evolution has never been observed. That was my point. Way to miss the forest for the termites, though.
Interspecies has yes. Of course that's using the scientific determination of species. I don't know what you are using. Nobody has ever observed a mountain form from start to finish either. Yet we can observe that mountain ranges rise a few inches every year. Why does it become impossible for smaller changes to accumulate and make larger ones?

We see that organisms appear and disappear in the fossil record. And the fossils we see in the past are of organisms that are totally different than those that exist today. This tells us that life has changed over time in a big way. We can observe it changing at a small scale over human lifetimes. Does it not make sense that those two are connected? We can also observe the patterns of DNA differences and similarities between organisms. They do not support "common design", but they do support common descent.





“We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.

Some of the Evidence for Climate Change

The Biologos Foundation - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

What Darwin Never Knew
   
Reply With Quote
  (#83) Old
SuperMonkey SuperMonkey is offline
Veteran

 


Reputation:
SuperMonkey will become famous soon enoughSuperMonkey will become famous soon enoughSuperMonkey will become famous soon enoughSuperMonkey will become famous soon enough
November 23rd, 2011, 11:48 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alate_One View Post
Interspecies has yes.
No it has not. Subspecies (mules, domestic dogs, etc.) have been created, but these are not true species. If it can breed with its ancestors then it is not a separate species. It it is sterile it is not a separate species as it is incapable of perpetuating itself.

Quote:
spe·cies
   /ˈspiʃiz, -siz/ Show Spelled [spee-sheez, -seez] Show IPA noun, plural -cies, adjective
noun
1.
a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind.
2.
Biology . the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/species

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alate_One View Post
Why does it become impossible for smaller changes to accumulate and make larger ones?
Never said it was impossible. I just see no reason to accept it as fact at present.





Deuteronomy 6:4-9, 11:13-21 Numbers 15:37-41


1 John 4:12-20
   
Reply With Quote
  (#84) Old
Stripe Stripe is online now
LIFETIME MEMBER
 Stripe's Avatar

 




Reputation:
Stripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peers
Stripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peers
November 23rd, 2011, 11:54 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alate_One View Post
They were blown there or possibly rafted there and then adaptive radiation took place.


Quote:
Read the book and you'll see the sources from which the author draws, writers of the period which bemoan the existence of too many species to fit on the ark. They came up with all sorts of crazy explanations for the data they were confronted with. YECs are just repeating ancient history, but unlike your historical counterparts, you're continuing to deny reality when there is far more data available to undermine your position. The amount of self deception required is really quite remarkable.


Quote:
You keep asserting this and never providing evidence. It's rather ironic when plenty of evidence has been provided to contradict your position, yet you still keep making the same assertions.
Try reading the link you say you already read.





Where is the evidence for a global flood?
Why do my eyes hurt?
You've never used them.

"...the waters under the "expanse" were under the crust."
-Bob B.

Nominate POTYs. See this thread.
   
Reply With Quote
  (#85) Old
Alate_One Alate_One is offline
Over 4000 post club
 Alate_One's Avatar

 


Reputation:
Alate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peers
November 23rd, 2011, 11:56 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperMonkey View Post
You're asking him to provide evidence for the fact that one species has never become another under scientifically observable conditions. You realize that's a negative, right?

I knew things would go horribly wrong once they got rid of Logic class in American high schools, but this is stunning.
You read the context of what I said yes? I said there's plenty of positive evidence to show mutation and natural selection is responsible. I did not actually ask him to "prove a negative", you jumped to that conclusion.

He says it isn't natural selection and mutation, it's a "designed change" a mechanism that is testable and is distinct from mutation and natural selection. He's talked about this before in other threads and the thinks animals and plants change their own DNA, by some unknown mechanism in a predictable way in response to environmental changes.

Problem is simple experiments were done long ago to disprove this idea. The most famous was the Luria-Delbruck experiment.

He keeps pretending the experiment doesn't exist and making his assertions over and over.





“We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.

Some of the Evidence for Climate Change

The Biologos Foundation - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

What Darwin Never Knew
   
Reply With Quote
  (#86) Old
Stuu Stuu is offline
Over 6000 post club

 


Reputation:
Stuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peers
November 24th, 2011, 01:48 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChoG View Post
It's fact.

To be more specific would open the possibility of racist repercussions.
The background has not been taught or talked about openly for many years. Religious discussion is a rare exception, as it is highly relevant to the actions and policies of some missionaries as well as discussion involving global flood.
Sorry, I've got absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

What are you talking about?

Stuart



   
Reply With Quote
  (#87) Old
Stuu Stuu is offline
Over 6000 post club

 


Reputation:
Stuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peers
November 24th, 2011, 01:52 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ernest View Post
Salmon are spawned in fresh water. They live in saltwater for about 4 years and then return to fresh water to spawn. They do not seem to have a problem with it.
That's one species then. How many species do you think there are that are adapted to brackish water, and how many can cope with the range of salinity found from seawater to freshwater?

Stuart



   
Reply With Quote
  (#88) Old
Stuu Stuu is offline
Over 6000 post club

 


Reputation:
Stuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peers
November 24th, 2011, 01:55 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by One Eyed Jack View Post
Only if we accepted the notion that they've actually been there that long. And that Noah was a Jew. In any case, we're not obliged to fit the story into the framework you provide. Evolutionists seem to have a hard time understanding that.
Sorry, I didn't realise you were just making up fiction.

Of course in that case you can have anything you want in the story.

Have you included fool's invisible jet? That might provide an interesting plot point for you.

Stuart



   
Reply With Quote
  (#89) Old
Stuu Stuu is offline
Over 6000 post club

 


Reputation:
Stuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peersStuu is well respected by his peers
November 24th, 2011, 01:58 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
The atheists don't seem to want a bar of discussing the rational answer to the OP.
We already told you the rational answer. As did some who are not atheists.

Not only is the answer "there never was a global flood" rational, it is also based on facts.

Stuart



   
Reply With Quote
  (#90) Old
SuperMonkey SuperMonkey is offline
Veteran

 


Reputation:
SuperMonkey will become famous soon enoughSuperMonkey will become famous soon enoughSuperMonkey will become famous soon enoughSuperMonkey will become famous soon enough
November 24th, 2011, 04:01 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuu View Post
We already told you the rational answer. As did some who are not atheists.

Not only is the answer "there never was a global flood" rational, it is also based on facts.

Stuart
What "facts" would those be? Perhaps the fact that there are over 5,000 distinct flood myths in various cultures around the world? Some of those are related to each other, obviously, but I think we can all agree that claiming that there is a direct religious connection between, say, the Mesopotamians and the Hopis would be a stretch.





Deuteronomy 6:4-9, 11:13-21 Numbers 15:37-41


1 John 4:12-20
   
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
flood, noguru is gay, stripe is a moron, stripe is gay


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
Copyright ©1997-2014 TheologyOnLine



Logos Bible Study Software Up to 15% OFF FOR THEOLOGYONLINE MEMBERS! Study twice, post once.
Logos Bible Software —take your Bible study to the next level.