|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:04 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:09 pm
 |
|
|
|
Spike Zantren The reason I do not use "what science says" about evolution is because the term 'evolution' can be bent and twisted to mean anything.
zz1000zz No it cannot. Scientists are extremely clear on what evolution means. The only people attempting to bend and twist its meaning are you, and the people like you. It is extremely absurd to bastardize a concept, then criticize the concept based upon said bastardization.
Then how about you give me something better than "change over a long period of time"? I could sit on my butt on the couch and change the channel on my TV for a long period of time, and my antenna can pick up new signals once I move it a little bit. That doesn't mean that my television is evolving.
Spike Zantren I was responding to your comment saying that there is no evidence for a young Earth, which is false.
Polonium halos defy the theory of an old, molten Earth.
halos.com A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radiactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly "effervescing" specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock. An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly "froze" into solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation. Read more...
The Flood of Noah explains the layers of sediment much better than millions of years.
Creation on the Web Thin, widespread sedimentsEarly in the Genesis Flood, regional or continental scale currents would be likely. These currents would spread sediments as a sheet over extensive areas. The sheets would be relatively thin vertically. Due to erosion, some of these widespread layers may have been dissected into remnants. However, these remnants should match lithologically across the eroded regions. In areas with stacked sedimentary sheets, little evidence of erosion between layers would be observed, since the sediments were deposited rapidly.39 Although the Flood could erode channels in depositional layers, channels should be rare. On the other hand, one would expect extensive erosion with many deep channels cutting practically all bedding planes if the sediments were laid down over millions of years. When we examine sedimentary rocks, we rarely observe channels at bedding planes or boundaries between layers, such as in the Grand Canyon (figure 3). The contacts between sedimentary formations are sometimes razor sharp over large areas (figure 4). Such a signature is a theme worldwide.39 What better direct evidence is there for the Genesis Flood? The Flood boundary would be above these stacked sedimentary rock layers. Read more...
Carbon dating is not reliable.
Answers in Genesis A Critical Assumption A critical assumption used in carbon-14 dating has to do with this ratio. It is assumed that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this assumption is true, then the AMS 14C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use would not be able to detect enough remaining 14C to be useful in age estimates. This is a critical assumption in the dating process. If this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect dates. What could cause this ratio to change? If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere is not equal to the removal rate (mostly through decay), this ratio will change. In other words, the amount of 14C being produced in the atmosphere must equal the amount being removed to be in a steady state (also called “equilibrium”). If this is not true, the ratio of 14C to 12C is not a constant, which would make knowing the starting amount of 14C in a specimen difficult or impossible to accurately determine. Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed this ratio to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old. Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important. If the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion. In Dr. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby’s calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium). If the cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for 20,000 or 30,000 years, and if the carbon reservoir has not changed appreciably in this time, then there exists at the present time a complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon atoms and the rate of assimilation of new radiocarbon atoms for all material in the life-cycle.2 Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state), and he attributed it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has turned out to be very real. The ratio of 14C /12C is not constant. The Specific Production Rate (SPR) of C-14 is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute.3 What does this mean? If it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and 14C is still out of equilibrium, then maybe the earth is not very old. Read more...
Dinosaurs are explained in the Bible, though not called "dinosaurs" persay.
Answers in Genesis Does the Bible Mention Dinosaurs? If people saw dinosaurs, you would think that ancient historical writings, such as the Bible, should mention them. The King James Version was first translated in 1611.16 Some people think that because the word “dinosaur” is not found in this or other translations, the Bible does not mention dinosaurs. “Dinosaur” was not invented until after the KJV It was not until 1841, however, that the word “dinosaur” was invented.17 Sir Richard Owen, a famous British anatomist and first superintendent of the British Museum (and a staunch anti-Darwinist), on viewing the bones of Iguanodon and Megalosaurus, realized these represented a unique group of reptiles that had not yet been classified. He coined the term “dinosaur” from Greek words meaning “terrible lizard.”18 Dinosaurs: Dragons of old Thus, one would not expect to find the word “dinosaur” in the King James Bible—the word did not exist when the translation was done. Is there another word for “dinosaur”? There are dragon legends from around the world. Many dragon descriptions fit the characteristics of specific dinosaurs. Could these actually be accounts of encounters with what we now call dinosaurs? Just as Flood legends are based on a real global Flood (Flood of Noah)— dragon legends are possibly based on actual encounters with real animals that today we call dinosaurs. Many of these land-dragon descriptions do fit with what we know about dinosaurs. In Genesis 1:21, the Bible says, “And God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed, after their kind.” The Hebrew word here for “sea monsters” (“whales” in KJV) is the word translated elsewhere as “dragon” (Hebrew: tannin). So, in the first chapter of the first book of the Bible, God may be describing the great sea dragons (sea-dwelling, dinosaur-type animals) that He created. There are other Bible passages about dragons that lived in the sea: “the dragons in the waters” (Psalm 74:13), “and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea” (Isaiah 27:1). Though the word “dinosaur” strictly refers to animals that lived on the land, the sea reptiles and flying reptiles are often grouped with the dinosaurs. The sea dragons could have included dinosaur-type animals such as the Mosasaurus.19 Job 41 describes a great animal that lived in the sea, Leviathan, that even breathed fire. This “dragon” may have been something like the mighty 40 ft. (12 m) Sarcosuchus imperator (Super Croc),20 or the 82 ft. (25 m) Liopleurodon. There is also mention of a flying serpent in the Bible: the “fiery flying serpent” (Isaiah 30:6). This could be a reference to one of the pterodactyls, which are popularly thought of as flying dinosaurs, such as the Pteranodon, Rhamphorhynchus, or Ornithocheirus.21 Not long after the Flood, God was showing a man called Job how great He was as Creator, by reminding Job of the largest land animal He had made: Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you; he eats grass like an ox. See now, his strength is in his hips, and his power is in his stomach muscles. He moves his tail like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are tightly knit. His bones are like beams of bronze, his ribs like bars of iron. He is the first of the ways of God; only He who made him can bring near His sword (Job 40:15–19). The phrase “first of the ways of God” suggests this was the largest land animal God had made. So what kind of animal was “behemoth”? Bible translators, not being sure what this beast was, often transliterated the Hebrew, and thus the word behemoth (e.g., KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV). However, in many Bible commentaries and Bible footnotes, “behemoth” is said to be “possibly the hippopotamus or elephant.”22 Some Bible versions actually translate “behemoth” this way.23 Besides the fact that the elephant and hippo were not the largest land animals God made (some of the dinosaurs far eclipsed these), this description does not make sense, since the tail of behemoth is compared to the large cedar tree (Job 40:17). Now an elephant’s tiny tail (or a hippo’s tail that looks like a flap of skin) is quite unlike a cedar tree. Clearly, the elephant and the hippo could not possibly be “behemoth.” No living creature comes close to this description. However, behemoth is very much like Brachiosaurus, one of the large dinosaurs. Read more...
God did not use evolution as a tool for creation.
Answers in Genesis Door of Compromise Now it is true that rejection of six literal days doesn’t ultimately affect one’s salvation, if one is truly born again. However, we need to stand back and look at the big picture. Only God’s Word is never changing. In many nations, the Word of God was once widely respected and taken seriously. But once the door of compromise is unlocked, once Christian leaders concede that we shouldn’t interpret the Bible as written in Genesis, why should the world take heed of God’s Word in any area? Because the church has told the world that one can use man’s interpretation of the world, such as billions of years, to reinterpret the Bible, this Book is seen as an outdated, scientifically incorrect holy book not intended to be believed as written. As each subsequent generation has pushed this door of compromise open farther and farther, they are increasingly not accepting the morality or salvation of the Bible either. After all, if the history in Genesis is not correct, how can one be sure the rest is correct? Jesus said, “If I have told you earthly things, and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you of heavenly things?” (John 3:12). The battle is not one of young earth vs. old earth, or billions of years vs. six days, or creation vs. evolution—the real battle is the authority of the Word of God vs. man’s fallible opinions. Why do Christians believe in the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ? Because of the words of Scripture (“according to the Scriptures”). And why should Christians believe in the six literal days of creation? Because of the words of Scripture (“In six days the Lord made ...”). The real issue is one of authority—is God’s Word the authority, or is man’s word the authority? So, couldn’t God have used evolution to create? The answer is No. A belief in millions of years of evolution not only contradicts the clear teaching of Genesis and the rest of Scripture but also impugns the character of God. He told us in the book of Genesis that He created the whole universe and everything in it in six days by His word: “Then God said ... .” His Word is the evidence of how and when God created, and His Word is incredibly clear. Read more...
Irreducible complexity supports an intelligent creation.
Contender Ministries A High Performance Motor: It is one of the most efficient motors ever contrived. It spins at a staggering 10,000 revolutions per minute. It can stop within a quarter of a turn, and immediately spin in the opposite direction at 10,000 rpm. At less than a couple of microns in length (a micron is one millionth of a meter), it is too small to see without very expensive electron microscopes. This motor powers the bacterial flagellum, which acts as a rotary motor to propel the bacteria. It takes approximately 30 to 35 proteins to form a functional flagellum. If we remove a few proteins, we won’t have a flagellum that rotates at only 5000 rpm, we have a flagellum that doesn’t work. Looking at a diagram of the flagellum makes one think of mechanical device that was designed by an intelligent creator. This is one example of irreducible complexity. Evolutionists have tried to refute this characterization, but have come up with nothing more than unproven hypotheses. One popular argument is that many of the proteins that make up the flagellum are also found in a cellular pump. Proponents of this argument contend that this pump picked up (co-opted) other proteins over time until it formed the flagellar motor. This hypothesis is analogous to a tire rolling through a scrap yard, picking up parts as it rolls until it forms a car. However, this argument fails when you consider that many of the proteins in the flagellum are found nowhere else in nature. That being the case, they could not have been co-opted during a gradual process of change. If anything, the cellular pump evolved from the flagellar motor, and the motor remains irreducibly complex. If you pick it, it will bleed: Scabs can be a great source of pride for children, or even adults who are children at heart. A large scab indicates a wound suffered in action – a fall from a bicycle, a tumble down a rocky slope, or a skiing accident on ice-crusted snow. The larger the scab, the more one can savor telling the story of its origin, with rights to embellish the story implicitly given. As children, we were told to not pick our scabs, but such advice was akin to “don’t look down,” invariably producing the result Mom wanted to avoid. These hardened blood clots are also indicative of an irreducibly complex system. While the blood clot itself is relatively simple, the system that regulates the clotting consists of ten finely tuned processes. Says, Behe: “If you make a clot in the wrong place – say, the brain or lung – you’ll die. If you make a clot twenty minutes after all the blood has drained from your body, you’ll die. If the blood clot isn’t confined to the cut, your entire blood system might solidify, and you’ll die. If you make a clot that doesn’t cover the entire length of the cut, you’ll die. To create a perfectly balanced blood-clotting system, clusters of protein components have to be inserted all at once. That rules out a gradualistic Darwinian approach…”[3] In order to explain how blood-clotting could have developed gradually, evolutionists are forced to paint vague word pictures with generalizations indicating that components “arose” or “sprang forth.” No scientists have effectively described how the components arose, and nobody has performed experiments to show empirically how this gradual development might have occurred. Moreover, the issue of how animals kept from bleeding to death while blood-clotting processes evolved is problematic for the evolutionists. The evidence points toward a creator, rather than evolution. Read more...
Fossilization could not happen over millions or even thousands of years.
Institute for Creation Research ossils have been frequently cited as the main evidence for evolution. The evolution/uniformitarian worldview postulates that the slow and gradual processes we see operating today are responsible not only for the death and extinction of plant and animal types but their burial in sediments which will eventually harden into sedimentary rocks. Uniformity’s slogan, “the present is the key to the past,” reflects their view of the origin of the features in the rock and fossil record. I think the great Flood of Noah’s day is a better explanation. First note that very few fossils are forming today and then only in the case of rapid burial by water. For instance what happens to a fish when it dies? It either floats to the surface or sinks to the bottom where it decays and is eaten by scavengers. Yet many fish fossils are so exquisitely preserved that even the scales and organs are preserved. Obviously there was no time for decay and bacterial action. We can certainly say that something extraordinary happened to form the fossils. Furthermore, most fossils occur in huge fossil graveyards where things from different habitats are mixed together in a watery grave. The predominant type of fossil is that of marine invertebrates but these are found on the continents within catastrophically deposited rock units. Of the several different kinds of fossils, each one requires rapid burial and circumstances which are seldom, if ever, at work today. Processes of fossilization include: Mineralization: This happens by partial or entire replacement of an organism by minerals, usually one molecule at a time as the organism decays. Time is involved but not time before burial. Petrification occurs when the replacing mineral is silica. Carbonization: Living things consist of high carbon content, and under extraordinary circumstances only the carbon remains. This includes the thick coal bands as well as thin carbon residues left in the host rock. Rapid isolation and heating is required. Impressions: These common fossils occur when the entire organism is replaced by the same material as the host rock leaving only the form of an organism. The detail preserved indicates no time for decay. Ephemeral markings: These common markings include worm burrows, animal tracks, coprolites, and rain-drop impressions. All are extremely fragile and need rapid lithification to be preserved. Hard parts: Bones and shells are found but these are usually broken. For instance, limbs ripped from dinosaurs, found in fossil graveyards, are the rule. Soft parts: Obviously these will only last for a very short time without rapid burial. These include flesh, feathers, skin, scales, plant tissue, color, and even smell. Frozen parts: These imply extremely low temperatures which trapped and froze the organisms quickly. Certainly this is not happening now on any scale. These fossil types (and other subcategories could be mentioned) require extraordinary circumstances of a rapid and catastrophic nature. The great Flood of Noah’s day which destroyed a world full of life is the best explanation. Read more...
The geologic time scale involves circular reasoning.
All About Creation Geologic Time Scale: Its History and Development Scottish geologist James Hutton (1726-1797) set the stage for the development of the geologic time scale in the late 18th century with the publication of his Theory of the Earth (1785). In it, Hutton advanced "uniformitarianism," a geological doctrine which basically assumes that current geologic processes, occurring at the same rates observed today, in the same manner, account for all of Earth's geological features, a principle later championed by British geologist Sir Charles Lyell (1797-1875). Next, British civil engineer, surveyor and amateur geologist William Smith (1769-1839) made the discovery that fossils are found buried in a definite order. The geologic time scale was developed shortly thereafter. Geologic Time Scale: What Is It? What is the geologic time scale and how does it work? Well, the earth's crust consists of many layers of sedimentary rock (called "strata"). Geologists assume that each layer represents a long period of time, typically millions of years. This is actually a secondary assumption based upon the primary assumption of Uniformitarianism. These layers of sedimentary rock contain billions of fossil remains and some of these fossils are unique to certain layers. The layers are catalogued and arbitrarily arranged into a specific order (not necessarily the order in which they are found). This order reflects the assumption of macro-evolution (the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor). The creatures thought to have evolved first are considered to be the oldest and are thus placed at the bottom of the column of layers. The creatures thought to have evolved later are higher up and so on. This has led many competent, accredited scientists to object, as this poses a circular argument: how can evolution be the basis for geologic conclusions while geology is taught as the basic evidence for evolution? "Are the authorities maintaining on the one hand, that evolution is documented by geology and, on the other hand, that geology is documented by evolution? Isn't this a circular argument?" (Larry Azar, "Biologists, Help!" Bioscience, vol. 28, November 1978, p. 714). A variety of fossils from each layer of strata have been chosen to be what are called "index fossils". Index fossils are how we date the sedimentary rock layers. Paleontologists assume the age of an index fossil by the stage of evolutionary history the fossil is assumed to be in. They guess how long it would take for one kind of life to evolve into another kind of life and then date the fossils and rocks accordingly. Once again, this is a circular argument. "And this poses something of a problem: If we date the rocks by the fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about the patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?" (Niles Eldridge, Time Frames, 1985, p. 52) Geologic Time Scale: Circular Reasoning The geologic time scale employs yet another circular argument. We determine the age of the rock by the assumed age of the index fossils it contains, then, to determine the age of all the other fossils in the same layer of rock, we look at the age of the layer of rock in which they are found. "…Geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain." (R. H. Rastall, "Geology", Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 10, 1954, p. 16 cool "In about 1830, Charles Lyell, Paul Deshayes, and Heinrich George Bronn independently developed a biostratigraphic technique for dating Cenozoic deposits [the geologic time scale]…. Strangely, little effort has been made to test this assumption. This failure leaves the method vulnerable to circularity." (Steven A. Stanley, Warron O. Addicott, and Kiyotaka Chizei, "Lyellian Curves in Paleontology: Possibilities and Limitations", Geology vol. 8, September 1980, p. 422) "The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism." (J. E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy", American Journal of Science, vol. 276, January 1976, p. 47) Read more...
zz1000zz There is no evidence for a young Earth. You have claimed there is, but you have made no effort to provide any such evidence. You can continue to claim there is evidence, but unless you actually provide material to discuss you are just making things up.
I've shown you merely a glimpse of my evidence. I hope you actually take the time to read it through carefully before making a response.
zz1000zz I am more than willing to discuss any issues people may have with science. Just please, before we do have a discussion, stop making things up about science.
See above |
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:24 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:31 pm
|
|
|
|
I know this might be stupid, but isn't adaptation a huge part of Evolution?
If so, how can you not believe in most parts of evolution?
I mean, Adaptation is a true thing, seriously, Seen it.
:/
Besides, where in the bible does it say that God make everything, and nothing ever changed? Its perfectly possible that God created the world, and then the world adapts to everything. I mean, it wasn't set in stone that we would be exact clones.
In fact, the bible almost proves adaptation!! Remember Jacob? I think it was him anyways. He met his uncle Laban(I need to find this story)? and then when he left he had all the good herds? Totally seems like it proves adaptation to me, in a way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:31 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:33 pm
|
|
|
|
Spike Zantren Fushigi na Butterfly Quote: Then how about you give me something better than "change over a long period of time"? I could sit on my butt on the couch and change the channel on my TV for a long period of time, and my antenna can pick up new signals once I move it a little bit. That doesn't mean that my television is evolving. It's called humour. Now I suggest you read the rest of the post.
Using humor like that in a debate like this.... is rather not smart. x_x |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:34 pm
|
|
|
 |
Spike Zantren Fushigi na Butterfly Quote: Then how about you give me something better than "change over a long period of time"? I could sit on my butt on the couch and change the channel on my TV for a long period of time, and my antenna can pick up new signals once I move it a little bit. That doesn't mean that my television is evolving. It's called humour. Now I suggest you read the rest of the post.
And it would have been funny if you weren't serious. Change over a long period of time is what evolution is. If you can't accept that, then there is nothing else I can say.
As for the rest of your post, I skimmed it, and realized I really had read it all before. Seriously. Because I used to be a strict creationist until I realized that evolution makes alot of sense too and doesn't necessarily mean the death of my faith. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:40 pm
|
|
|
|
Spike Zantren Spike Zantren The reason I do not use "what science says" about evolution is because the term 'evolution' can be bent and twisted to mean anything. zz1000zz No it cannot. Scientists are extremely clear on what evolution means. The only people attempting to bend and twist its meaning are you, and the people like you. It is extremely absurd to bastardize a concept, then criticize the concept based upon said bastardization. Then how about you give me something better than "change over a long period of time"? I could sit on my butt on the couch and change the channel on my TV for a long period of time, and my antenna can pick up new signals once I move it a little bit. That doesn't mean that my television is evolving.
The definition I provided was not "change over a long period of time." I gave a precise definition, used by science. You ignored it, and now you misrepresent it and me. By using such a misrepresentation you are being dishonest.
Spike Zantren Spike Zantren I was responding to your comment saying that there is no evidence for a young Earth, which is false. Polonium halos defy the theory of an old, molten Earth. halos.com A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radiactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly "effervescing" specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock. An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly "froze" into solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation. Read more...
I would wager you do not even understand the material your presented here. You certainly have not attempted to explain it, choosing to instead just point to a website, as though that were enough. I happen to actually have discussed this exact subject in the past. Since you did not put any effort into this subject, I will simply point to this site, which is more than sufficient refute your source (if anyone would care to actually understand the subject).
Spike Zantren zz1000zz There is no evidence for a young Earth. You have claimed there is, but you have made no effort to provide any such evidence. You can continue to claim there is evidence, but unless you actually provide material to discuss you are just making things up. I've shown you merely a glimpse of my evidence. I hope you actually take the time to read it through carefully before making a response. zz1000zz I am more than willing to discuss any issues people may have with science. Just please, before we do have a discussion, stop making things up about science.
All you have done is mindlessly point to sources without even understanding what they say. I have no obligation to explain what is wrong with material you present if you cannot even be bothered to actually discuss them yourself. Take the time to understand what you provide (and perhaps discuss it with more than one sentence), and I will take the time to discuss what is wrong with it.
But first, stop being dishonest. If you are going to be dishonest, obviously you are not interested in an actual discussion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:44 pm
|
|
|
|
Fushigi na Butterfly Spike Zantren Fushigi na Butterfly Quote: Then how about you give me something better than "change over a long period of time"? I could sit on my butt on the couch and change the channel on my TV for a long period of time, and my antenna can pick up new signals once I move it a little bit. That doesn't mean that my television is evolving. It's called humour. Now I suggest you read the rest of the post.
As for the rest of your post, I skimmed it, and realized I really had read it all before. Seriously. Because I used to be a strict creationist until I realized that evolution makes alot of sense too and doesn't necessarily mean the death of my faith.
No, evolution is not "change over a long period of time." Considering the nonsense Spike Zantren has pulled with definitions, I think it is important we keep a strict definition of evolution, which I have already provided (and Spike Zantren flagrantly ignored). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:44 pm
|
|
|
|
Paranormal Zombiiie I know this might be stupid, but isn't adaptation a huge part of Evolution? If so, how can you not believe in most parts of evolution? I mean, Adaptation is a true thing, seriously, Seen it. :/ Besides, where in the bible does it say that God make everything, and nothing ever changed? Its perfectly possible that God created the world, and then the world adapts to everything. I mean, it wasn't set in stone that we would be exact clones. In fact, the bible almost proves adaptation!! Remember Jacob? I think it was him anyways. He met his uncle Laban(I need to find this story)? and then when he left he had all the good herds? Totally seems like it proves adaptation to me, in a way.
That's the thing though, adaptation is not evolution. It's made to look like a driving force of it, but it in itself, is not evolution.
Adaptations are real, and I haven't said that they weren't.
How about I make this easy and redefine what my position is? While I know that I'm going to be bashed for using this terminology, it will still make things much easier on me when trying to make a point. I can't stress this point enough.
When I refer to evolution, I am referring to the idea that one kind of organism evolves into another kind of animal.
As it says in Genesis 1:24 - And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Examples of kinds would be a grouping of similar animals, such as:
-Zebras, horses, and donkeys.
-Dogs, Wolves, and Coyotes.
-Cats, Tigers, and Lions.
These groupings probably did have a common ancestor.
When I am referring to adaptation, I am referring to the same kind of animal either in the current generation or the next adapting to it's surroundings or inheriting information from it's parents while it remains the same kind of creature.
Examples of adaptations would be:
-Finches getting to the point where they have different beak lengths - they remain finches.
-Dogs cross-breeding to create new breeds of dogs - they remain dogs.
- A human inheriting eye-colour information from the chromozomes from the mother and father.
Speciation is still not evolution, as the animals remain the same kind of organism.
A soy bean plant getting to the point where it becomes resistant to frost, and creates a new species - they are still the same kind of plant; soy bean plants.
When I refer to a kind I do not mean a species, just to make it crystal clear. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:52 pm
|
|
|
|
zz1000zz Fushigi na Butterfly Spike Zantren Fushigi na Butterfly Quote: Then how about you give me something better than "change over a long period of time"? I could sit on my butt on the couch and change the channel on my TV for a long period of time, and my antenna can pick up new signals once I move it a little bit. That doesn't mean that my television is evolving. It's called humour. Now I suggest you read the rest of the post.
As for the rest of your post, I skimmed it, and realized I really had read it all before. Seriously. Because I used to be a strict creationist until I realized that evolution makes alot of sense too and doesn't necessarily mean the death of my faith.No, evolution is not "change over a long period of time." Considering the nonsense Spike Zantren has pulled with definitions, I think it is important we keep a strict definition of evolution, which I have already provided (and Spike Zantren flagrantly ignored).
Well, I was trying to break it down into its smallest element. Obviously there is more stuff to it- natural selection and adaptation and inheritance and such. But evolution takes time, and involves changes from something to something. Sometimes you get new species entirely, sometimes you get subspecies. -shrug- But Spike doesn't seem to get that, so ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:52 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:57 pm
|
|
|
|
Fushigi na Butterfly zz1000zz Fushigi na Butterfly Spike Zantren Fushigi na Butterfly Quote: Then how about you give me something better than "change over a long period of time"? I could sit on my butt on the couch and change the channel on my TV for a long period of time, and my antenna can pick up new signals once I move it a little bit. That doesn't mean that my television is evolving. It's called humour. Now I suggest you read the rest of the post.
As for the rest of your post, I skimmed it, and realized I really had read it all before. Seriously. Because I used to be a strict creationist until I realized that evolution makes alot of sense too and doesn't necessarily mean the death of my faith.No, evolution is not "change over a long period of time." Considering the nonsense Spike Zantren has pulled with definitions, I think it is important we keep a strict definition of evolution, which I have already provided (and Spike Zantren flagrantly ignored).
Normally I would not have a problem with your definition. The problem is that I gave Spike Zantren a precise, scientific definition. He ignored it and said, "Then how about you give me something better than 'change over a long period of time'?" He chose to ignore the definition that did not suit him, instead latching onto a vague definition. By you using an imprecise definition, you just make it easier for Spike Zantren to continue his abuse of science. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:04 pm
|
|
|
|
zz1000zz Fushigi na Butterfly zz1000zz Fushigi na Butterfly Spike Zantren It's called humour. Now I suggest you read the rest of the post.
As for the rest of your post, I skimmed it, and realized I really had read it all before. Seriously. Because I used to be a strict creationist until I realized that evolution makes alot of sense too and doesn't necessarily mean the death of my faith.No, evolution is not "change over a long period of time." Considering the nonsense Spike Zantren has pulled with definitions, I think it is important we keep a strict definition of evolution, which I have already provided (and Spike Zantren flagrantly ignored). Normally I would not have a problem with your definition. The problem is that I gave Spike Zantren a precise, scientific definition. He ignored it and said, "Then how about you give me something better than 'change over a long period of time'?" He chose to ignore the definition that did not suit him, instead latching onto a vague definition. By you using an imprecise definition, you just make it easier for Spike Zantren to continue his abuse of science.
I'll stay out of the definitions then. sweatdrop xd |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:05 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
