Creation = Christian

hey teen4christ, I think (hope) this is on topic here since we are speaking about "Creation=Christian" ...You claim to be christian, do you subscribe to the Creation Model, The Theory of Evolution or Intelligent Design?Edited by antiLIE, : No reason given.

---

Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [ VIII:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei

Then you aren't reading anything that people post in response to you. You specifically asked for "enlightenment," and we've given you what the Theory of Evolutuion actually says. Have you not understood what we've said? From the tone of your posts I suspect you're just ignorning what other people say.Here's the way this works:Either you can actually seek the truth as your name implies and learn about what the Theory of Evolution actually says, and then argue for or against from a position of knowledge rather than intentional ignorance...Or, you can continue to ignore what people say, continue to post horrendous strawman arguments, look like an idiot, and eventually work your way to suspensions and a ban for not actually participating in meaningful debate.I don't care whether you believe in evolution, but if you're going to argue against it, wouldn't it be more honest to actually understand what it is, first?I posted a rather long reply to your Message 4 explaining in detail your errors regarding the Theory of Evolution, and even a brief description of teh big Bang model. You don't seem to have actually read it, unfortunately, as you still don't understand why your statements in Message 4 have little or nothing to do with anything that could be called a "fact," or "reality."Would you care to actually participate in debate, and try to learn? Or would you like to continue to repeat the same mantra of "evolution is false, there is no evidence, no I haven't looked into it, see there's no case of a frog mutating into a bull so it's all false I win"?Many of us would be more than happy to help you learn what the Theory of Evolution actually states. We even have several real-life biologists on this board who use the principles of evolution literally every day in their work. Whether you choose to that evolution happens is not our primary concern, we would just like to have opponents who argue honestly rather than using "claims" of evolution that don't actually exist.

There is still no specific evidence that shows a link between apes and humans. Where is the evidence that shows this fused chromosome came from an ape? If you are 4christ then you should believe in the bible story of creation that states animal was created first, then man was created out of the dust of the earth.

That is a pretty good observation. The theory of evolution is accepted by atheists, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and Christians (even evangelical Christians) and many, many people of different faiths, political ideologies, and social backgrounds.Meanwhile young earth creationism is, by and large, accepted only by those who insist that their scriptures must be read literally.To me, this suggests that the evidence is such that there is really only one reasonable conclusion that one can reach despite one's religion or ideology, while it takes a strong commitment to one's literal reading of one's scriptures to avoid this obvious conclusion.

---

Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev

I have actually read of the responses posted on this thread. I appreciate all of the feedback given as well. While I see the point all of you are making, I still have to disagree with the entire premise that evolution stands on.

Hi seekingthetruth, Let me state I believe Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.I do not dispute that things change over time.I do dispute that macroevolution has taken place. There is no evidence for one creature becoming a totally different creature.No one has presented any evidence other than to say over a long period of time with enough small changes it had to happen.Now to your problem with understinding what these fellows are talking about. It is the same problem I have had. When they talk of evolution they only talk of biological evolution.Evolution = Biological evolution. Nothing else.ToE = Biological evolution. Nothing else.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

If you understood the points I made, then you would no longer be using strawman versions of evolution in your posts.What is this premise that you believe evolution stands on?Evolution requires three things:1) Living creatures that reproduce imperfectly (ie, mutations) and pass genetic information on to their offspring2) Limited resources3) TimeGiven these three things, changes in the frequency of any given trait in a population guided by natural selection are inevitable. Countless computer simulations of the process have been done given only duplications of those three things, and the change in the frequency of features is directly observable. Laboratory observations have duplicated the effect millions of times as well, taking a population into a new environment and observing as the frequency of given features changes compared to the original population. Direct observations in nature have confirmed the effect, from the camouflage changes int eh British Peppered Moth to the "superbug" diseases that have developed a resistance to specific antibiotics.What is the premise you disagree with?From the sound of it, you disagree with some of the predictions of evolution - that is, you would agree that all of these observations do in fact reflect that evolution occurs on a small scale. You would likely call it "adaptation within a kind," as that's what most Creationists seem to call it. But you disagree with common ancestry and timescales longer than a few thousand years.If that is the case, what is the mechanism that stops small-scale changes over a few generations from adding up to very large changes over many generations?Let me use yet another old analogy to bring the point to bear:Evolution is like walking. Each step you take causes a very small, sometimes imperceptible change in the scenery. Over many steps, like say walking from one city to another in the same general area, will cause noticeable changes in the scenery, but if you started in New York and walked to New Haven, CT, you wouldn't see a huge difference - the same species of trees and animals, similar architecture, etc. This is analogous to "microevolution," your "change within a kind." But what happens if you walk a long way? What if you walk all the way to the Arizona desert? Now, the scenery is very different. The plants and animals are almost completely different, the climate is different, the ground looks different, the architecture of buildings is different...and yet each step along the entire journey was very small. This is analogous to "macroevolution," which you are claiming is impossible.Given small inheritable changes each generation (which is observed fact), it is inevitable that the small changes will eventually add up to large changes over many generations, unless there is a mechanism preventing large changes from adding up.Do you have such a mechanism? Do you have a reason you disagree with evolution, something that actually falsifies the model? Or do you disagree with it based only on your subjective religious beliefs, with no actual evidence whatsoever?You're certainly welcome to believe whatever you'd like, but if you have no real evidence to falsify evolution, and instead disagree only based on subjective religious beliefs, then discussion is somewhat moot. I can show you direct, observed evidence that evolution is factual. I've even done so in this thread. But if you only accept those theories that are 100% compatible with your subjective beliefs, even when shown direct evidence to the contrary, then there is no further point in debating.Of course, if that's the case, you'll also need to pretend that all of modern astronomy, geology, archeology, paleontology, physics, chemistry and the very idea of logical inferences are completely false as well, as they disagree with the literal Biblical Creation story as well.

seekingthetruth writes

quote:

---

If you are 4christ then you should believe in the bible story of creation that states animal was created first, then man was created out of the dust of the earth.

---

I haven't stated what I believe. This doesn't negate the fact that the theory of evolution predicted that one of the human chromosomes should have extra centromere and pair of telomeres long before geneticists identified the extra centromere and pair of telomeres on the human chromosome number two.

quote:

---

Where is the evidence that shows this fused chromosome came from an ape?

---

There you go again using strawman to attack the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution never said the fused chromosome came from an ape.

quote:

---

There is still no specific evidence that shows a link between apes and humans.

---

The genome of the apes are 99% identical to the genome of humans.How are you to convince someone of Christian honesty if you keep spouting ignorance topped with arrogance of "I know all"?Have you ever taken anti-biotics to fight a bacterial infection? Since you accused me of not really believing in Christ because I pointed out your ignorance, I could very well accused you of not really believing in Christ because you've used anti-biotics rather than simply pray for God to fight the infection for you.Have you ever taken a flu shot? Have you ever seen a doctor at all? Why didn't you just pray for God to heal you? You clearly must not be a real follower of Christ if you didn't rely on Him to keep you safe.

The key sentence in message 1: As the directly following messages stated, there are also anti-evolutionists other than Christians.The old topic was revived in a way that shoots off into off-topic land. Closing this topic down in no less than 15 minutes.Find a better place for the off-topic debate. Propose a new topic if needed.Adminnemooseus

ICANT writes

quote:

---

I do dispute that macroevolution has taken place. There is no evidence for one creature becoming a totally different creature.

---

I've been watching you make this same statement over and over the last couple months or so. Please realize this is a strawman. The theory of evolution never stated anywhere that a creature would ever become a totally different creature. This is a strawman created by YECs to discredit the theory.Let me attempt to try to make you understand why this is a strawman argument.Evolution means the change of allele frequency over time. Consider the following simple example to understand what this statement means.We have a population jaquar sharks. Among the population we find 20% with the A allele, 20% with the B allele, 20% with the C allele, 20% with the D allele, and 20% with the E allele. The phenotypes of A and B swim slower than the phenotypes C, D, and E. However, food is plentiful where they live so there really isn't a disadvantage for the ones who carry A and B. But lately, for whatever reason, food has become a little less plentiful and the ones carrying A and B find it harder to compete C, D, and E for food and potential mates. After a few generations of this, we find the population of jaquar sharks to be the following: 15% A, 17% B, 22% C, 20% D, and 26% E. The allele frequency has changed.And that's what evolution is. In other words, the typical jaquar shark we now find is genetically different than the the jaquar shark we'd find 3 generations ago.Now, suppose we fast foward in time to 47 generations later and we find out that the genotype A has completely disappeared, B is still hanging on by about 1%, C is gone, D has 34% of the population, and E is 42%. What we'd also find is that along the way there was a mutation somewhere that gave rise to a new genotype and this new genotype has taken hold of 23% of the population. The allele frequency has shifted again.If we fast foward another 100 generations or so we'd find that the accumulated shifts in allele frequency have rendered this generation of jaquar sharks to have completely different allele frequency from the jaquar sharks so many generations ago. We might be able to find that if we somehow can take a jaquar shark back in time to 150 generations ago we might find that this jaquar shark might have trouble breeding with jaquar sharks of the past because of the accumulated differences in the various genotypes. The problem might not even be biological. The problem might be that the mating ritual has changed.We have found genetic samples from the distant past that show just this kind of genetic isolation by the passages of time and accumulation of lots and lots of small changes in allele frequency even if the organisms of the past share the same appearance as the organisms of the present.Please understand that what I described above is something completely different than what YOU would normally mean when you say "macroevolution". This is why people have a problem with creationists using the word "macroevolution". You guys are using it as if a shark one day decides to morph into a whale.The theory of evolution states that if given enough time and enough accumulation of changes in allele frequency, the population could become so different from the original population hundreds of generations ago that they might not resemble each other anymore. If they continue to evolve (please go back up to see the definition of evolution), the accumulation of thousands of small changes might eventually make this population not recognizable when compared to the population thousands of generations ago.Here is an experiment you could do. Go out and buy a painting. Every day of the rest of your life, put a small dot somewhere on the painting. When I said small, I mean try to make the dot so small that noone would be able to notice a difference just by looking at it. Don't forget to take a picture of the painting at the beginning. We'll use that to represent our fossil. After 20 years of putting tiny little dots on the painting, do you think the painting will be the same painting anymore? You will undoubtedly find some resemblance here and there, and we find the same sorts of resemblance in today's life.

quote:

---

Evolution = Biological evolution. Nothing else.

---

No, this is wrong. Like every word in the English language, we have to use the word "evolution" in context with what the user of the word means. In academia, when a person says "blah blah blah evolution blah blah blah", he typically means biological evolution. If, however, he says "blah blah blah stellar evolution blah blah blah", then in context of the sentence he really means stellar evolution.For example, look at the word "run". When we say "blah blah blah run blah blah blah", we typically mean the physical action of running. But when we say "blah blah blah candidates run blah blah blah", do you honestly believe people would take that to mean the candidates are literally physically running around?ICANT, remember that thread you started? People tried to explain this context thing to you in several hundred posts. Why are we still discussing this now?

The time is NOW.AdminnemooseusEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Change ID.