Sad what creationism can do to a mind, part 2

------------------------------------
Karl(msg#34): The initial population didn't need to survive long because evolution is pretty much inevitable. Why? Well, organisms have far more offspring than survive to reproduce. There is variation within the population. Those most suited to the environment are those most likely to be the lucky ones. They therefore pass on their beneficial characteristics to their offspring, causing a change in the proportions of different characteristics in the population.Diversity - when a population spreads into new environments, different characteristics will be beneficial in one environment compared to another. Therefore, evolution will follow different paths in different environments. This will lead to a diversity of forms.
------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
Originally posted by schrafinator:Karl already did in message #34. Why don't you reply to him?
-------------------------------------------That's a lovely story..it doesn't really say much and what is does say sounds more like micro-evolution than macro...nobody's is arguing against micro-ev.I checked my University "mainstream science" biology textbook, and guess what, the "story" of evolution is even more laughable in the textbook, than the summary I gave of your "theory" earlier.
BTW, even though you guys don't include origin of life anymore (how conveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenient ) the text did,...sad to see such "busch league" material in a university textbook.Forgetting the origin (which you hypocrites don't mind attributing to God), according to ToE single celled organisms take up 3.7 billion years of life, and in the last 0.8 billion years ALL plant and animal life has "evolved"....wow! Like I said before, you guys have greater faith than I do..too bad you won't place it where it belongs (Creator God). Not to mention that according to ToE, probably every 25 million years there is a worldwide catastrophic event which wipes out life (ie. dino's) which leaves even less time to "evolve"...yet even though God describes a world wide catastrophic event, you dismiss it.Give your head a shake people!

Karl, the guppies remained guppies, the salmon remained salmon...that's micro-ev.
It does NOT mean that a mammal can come from a reptile as you guys would have us believe.
It boils down to this, FAITH. You BELIEVE that guppies evolving to different GUPPIES means that a reptile evolved to a mammal...fine, but that is FAITH and not fact.
I believe that God created the world and the different animals and plants, etc. That is also faith, but at least it makes more sense since we don't see any transitional creatures walking around and the immense fossil record shows fully formed creatures of the different species.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

Maybe you would like to explain the barrier which prevents macroevolution from happening?

---

The Barrier is information, or should I say LACK of it.
http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

..., these genomic changes of microevolution accumulate over time to cause macroevolution.

---

Are you stating this as fact or theory?

quote:

---

​

A good analogy is a long journey by foot. One can travel long distances by taking just one step at a time. You can actually walk from New York to San Francisco. To carry the analogy a bit further, there are barriers to travel on foot, since you cannot walk from New York to London because of the obvious barrier of the Atlantic Ocean.

​

So we wonder, what is the barrier preventing interspecies change? It isn't information.

​

--Percy

---

So what IS the barrier then?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl:
But that's your problem. The guppies had gained information - the information to grow bigger and mature later. The original salmon had only the information for one lifestyle - but now the two populations have two lifestyles. More information.

​

As to your question "what is the barrier then?", the answer is there is no barrier. As evidenced by the fossil record, the phylogenetic evidence, the biochemical evidence etc. etc. etc.

​

[This message has been edited by Karl, 12-02-2002]

---

I disagree. The information would have been pre-coded in the DNA, so it was not "new", simply unused...that's why it was still a guppy and not a shark.As far as the barrier....it ....is....HUGE....Impassable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

Ever hear of lungfish?

​

---

http://www.pr.mq.edu.au/macnews/ShowItem.asp?ItemID=69
Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research
yeah, and it was a lungfish "400 million" years ago too...what's your point?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

I think Schraf was responding to your inquiry about transitionals by citing a sort of living transitional. Monotremes (the platypus is one) are another example. Independent of whether you accept evolution, these creatures possess characteristics intermediate between classes of organisms. It is thought that air-breathing organisms descended from an ancient relative of the modern lungfish and not the modern lungfish itself, and that modern mammals share a common ancestor with the modern monotremes, and are not descended from them.

​

There are also many fossil transitionals, and I think some information about these has already been provided. Whether or not you yourself accept the transitional status of any fossils, the fact remains that the fossil record is one of increasing differences from modern forms with increasing depth, and the theory of evolution explains this record of change by proposing that organisms change over time in response to changing environmental conditions.

​

--Percy

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 12-03-2002]

---

Just because a creature has characteristics of a "transitional" does not make it one, ESPECIALLY given that it has NOT changed over millions of years, I think you can agree with that Percy.------------------
Romans 1:20
From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

Perhaps it's time to re-examine the original statement.Evolution:
- There is no God (purists).
- We are here by accident.
- There is no purpose for life.
- There are no absolute morals (hence: abortions, genocide,etc)
- We are no different than the animals.Creation:
- There is a God who loves us.
- We are here for a purpose.
- God knew us before we were born, and loved us, still does.
- There are absolute morals and values.
- We are NOT animals, but far superior, created in God's image.
- We are so valuable that the Creator Himself gave his life for us.Now, which one is sadder for the mind??Case closed!
------------------
Romans 1:20
From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

Unless the thread search capability is broken, this is the first time this has been posted on this thread, so this can't possibly be your or anyone's original statement. Plus this seems to be taking the topic into an area more pertinent to the Faith and Belief thread. But anyway...

​

--Percy

---

Percy, what is the topic of this thread? That's what I wanted to re-examine... ------------------
Romans 1:20
From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

Okay, what am I missing here?Is this thread not entitled "Sad what creationism can do to a mind, part 2" ???If I understand english (and I think I do) me comparing evolution-ism and creation-ism, and seeing what effect either FAITH has on the mind, is entirely with merit and properly attributed to this discussion...is it not?------------------
Romans 1:20
From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

What is the evolutionists definition of "animal"?------------------
Romans 1:20
From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

YES, finally some people from the opposite side have shown up It really does sicken the heart to think that some people see themselves as nothing more than a beast (animal)...God is very clear about the fact that we ARE the crown of His creation, and NOT a beast.To honestly believe we are just a slightly more advanced ape.....well...what can I say, their eyes our blind, their mind is deceived.We love and we hate, we design and we destroy, we birth and we bury, we conquer and we are conquered, we believe and we doubt, we laugh and we cry, we create...WE ARE **NOT** ANIMALS!!!!!------------------
Romans 1:20
From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

We eat and breath, sweat and defecate, are born and die. We have cells and blood and nerves and bones and organs. Like the apes, we have hands and feet and body hair. We reproduce and suckle our young like any mammal. We are fauna just like any other fauna on the planet.

​

--Percy

---

*********WARNING********The following information could be detrimental to young believers in the antiquated theory of evolution.By admission of the evolutionistic society that humans are just another "animal", the ensuing statement naturally follows:*******************
If it can be clearly demonstrated and proven that humans are **NOT** animals but are distinct and superior, the theory of evolution **COMPLETELY and UTTERLY** disintegrates!!!
******************------------------
Romans 1:20
From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

Here are but a few differences that embody the immense chasm that separates us from the beasts:1. We make and use tools.
2. Art. No animal has ever drawn beautiful pictures and expressions of their creative imagination.
3. Speech. Although animals can communicate, our speech is far superior including lenghty online debates between intelligent people, in written form.
4. Fire. Animals flee from fire, we USE fire.
5. Burial. Humans bury their dead. We are aware of our mortality. We think about the forever after.To believe we are animals, is to deny the very basic inate sensation of knowing we are human beings.We've put men on the moon, split the atom, sent probes to distant space, discovered and cured many diseases, painted the sistine chapel, built 500 meter towers, etc etc...It is obvious we are different.------------------
Romans 1:20
From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

Differences Between Humans and Animals | Answers in Genesis I'm sure even you "primates" can smile at this...------------------
Romans 1:20
From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.