God vs. Science

What if the wind blows over your steps in several places? Does the absence of several, even many steps mean the mechanism is invalid? The fossil record is not the basis of evolution, it simply support it. There is no scenario where we will ever be able to find examples of every single generation of living creatures in a given lineage unless performing a controlled laboratory experiment. Fossilization is simply far too rare an event.However, to return to the "many steps" analogy, we can predict that, looking backwards, we should eventually see some steps, somewhere. We do see them, even if we don't see all of them, and they look exactly as we would expect if we had taken a long walk. How so? Those who claim "micro" evolution cannot become "macro" evolution are insisting that something prevents small changes from adding up to changes large enough to result in seperate species. It's like saying that something will prevent me from reaching a certain distance by walking - and yet Creationists and IDists insist that there is something preventing "macro" evolution, without proposing any mechanism that would do so. It would be more like "we don't know how we got the wheel. Maybe somebody found a wheel, maybe "god" gave it to us, and maybe a space alien gave it to us. Or maybe some smart guy figured it out after watching a rock roll downhill." Evolution only requires life, not abiogenesis. Evolution fits just as well regardless of what originally brought life to Earth.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

Hi Rahvin, First it is not proven that it is inevitable that microevolution will turn into macroevolution. It has never been observed or reproduced under labatory conditions.Second I don't know where the words micro and macro came from. I do know in the 1800's there was a word used that evolutionist did not like. I still use that word.It is a fact that transmutation has never occured in animals.
It would have taken a lot of transmutations to get from a single cell life form to a human being.If it had it would be plastered everywhere. Presented as a fact that God did not exist.http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Di... Transmute - definition of transmute by The Free Dictionary transmutation, transmutations- WordWeb dictionary definition There are many articles on transmutation but not one single article I can find where one creature became another.

---

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

How come after more than a century creationists still don't have better arguments than 'Why are there still monkeys?' and 'No one has ever seen a fish turn into a lizard.' Don't you ever feel you would be better able to argue your case if you had even the slightest inkling of what evolution is actually supposed to involve?Secondly by at least one of your definitions, 'A qualitative change
- transformation, shift', transmutation is occurring all the time in as organisms reproduce, didn't you ever notice the term mutation in genetics discussions?TTFN,WK

Hi Rahvin, I love this walking example of evolution many like to give.Lets examine it:A man starts out on a 1,000 mile journey taking one step at a time he stops along the way gets food eats, rests but continues his journey. At the end of the journey he is tired, tanned and a little older.Evolution:A wolf starts on a thousand mile journey he makes it one step at a time but they are much swifter than the man so he makes the journey a lot faster and when he gets there he is not as tired as the man was. But he is still a wolf.Yep that is exactly what I think evolution is.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."

Define "micro" and "macro" evolution, and give us the exact point at which you claim one cannot be the other. Rememebr, there is no distinction drawn int he actual theory of evolution - they are part of a claim from Creationists and IDists, not actual scientists. If you are saying that the formation of a new and seperate species from an already existing species has never been observed, you are sadly mistaken.You've been told this many times, ICANT: the theory of evolution does not predict at any time that one animal will "transmute" into another animal. Evolution states that genetic traits in given populations change over time due to mutation and genetic drift, guided by natural selection. It predicts that small changes will be observable within generations, and that these small changes when added up over many, many generations can amount to a new species.That's an awful far cry from claiming a monkey should turn into a bird, which is what you seem to be saying evolution predicts.Since you've been told this multiple times, are you being willfully ignorant, or is your strawman a boldfaced lie?

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

Hi WK, These are not my definitions.A transformation and a transmutation are not the same thing.Yes I have heard of mutation.Transmutation has never happened in animals.That would be one animal becoming a competely different animal. Could you point out in my Message 107 are in any of my other 1100+ posts I asked such a question.You wouldn't by chance be doing a little trolling would you?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."

...that has absolutely no connection whatsoever to evolution or the analogy made. Do you not understand the analogy or evolution, or are you deliberately being misleading?This is the analogy:Evolution predicts that many, many generations of very small changes will eventually add up to very large changes sufficient to designate a new species. If one were to take an example of each generation of a population, there would be very little difference from one to the next, but after many, many generations, the population will start to look different (assuming selective pressure is applied as it is in nature). Eventually those small generational changes can add up to the formation of a new species from the descendents of the original population.If a man starts walking West from New York, each individual step is very small, and his surroundings will look much the same. Once he leaves the city, those small steps have added up to a significant change - no longer is he in an urban environment; his surroundings are now much different from when he was in the city. As he continues to walk, the scenery will change even more - eventually he will reach the Great Plains, which look almost nothing like even the areas surrounding New York. He'll then pass through the deserts of the West, which look even more different. Each of his individual steps has been only a very tiny change, and if he took a picture for each step, you would see a very clear progression. Even if he lost the vast majority of the pictures, you would be able to seperate the pictures in New York from those outside the city, and those in the midwest, and the southwestern deserts.Creationists and IDists claim that the very small steps cannot possibly add up to large changes in evolution. A mechanism is obviously required to stop this aggregate change, just as something would need to stop our walking man to prevent his small steps from adding up to large distances. What mechanism, ICANT, do you propose stops small changes in each generation from adding up to large aggregate changes?I can answer that for you: personal incredulity, ignorance, and appeals to the authority of the Bible, without establishing that the Bible has any such authority concerning biology or paleontology.So again, ICANT, are you not comprehending the analogy, or are you being deliberately misleading?

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

Hi Rahvin, I thought you gave your definition in Message 101 when you said: "there is no distinction between the two in actual science." I hunt the Internet for information of any animal ever becoming another animal. There is no place I find that so states.You and just about everyone here tell me it did take place over 500 million years. You are very adamant on that point in this message 110.There is not a shred of evidence that man came from a single cell life form.There is much evidence of species changing over time.But never of one creature becoming another creature.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."

Hi Rahvin, No just trying to point out how stupid the idea is. It makes no difference how far this man walks he will still be a man. I know what evolution predicts.But it has never been proven.There is a history of forams that cover 500,000 years during which 330 species of forams are seen to speciate.article 8In this article it states: 66 million years of forams, with a 500,000 year unbroken record with 330 species of forams.No record of anything but forams. In 66 million years it looks like something else would have appeared.All those small steps ended up with a foram.This 66 million year period is also the same time period man came from whatever was left after this extinction.According to the evidence put forth by Tony Arnold and Bill Parker in their findings I conclude evolution has not taken place as it is presently taught.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 hunt evolution textbooks, you wont find it there, either. You're attacking a strawman of evolution - the actual theory never predicts that one animal should "morph" into another. It only predicts that many, sometimes millions, of generations of small almost imperceptible changes can add up to aggregate changes sufficient to make the new population and the original population seperate species. You're misunderstanding. Read the paragraph above, and tell us if you see the difference. If you do not, the problem is your understanding of evolution. If you trace life back to its earliest forms, only single-celled organisms existed. If all life forms on Earth are related, as evolution predicts and genetics suggest, all life must have come from single-celled organisms. Of course not. But there is evidence, even down to direct observation, of a new species forming after many generations from an ancestor species.Your idea that creatures should "become" other creatures via some sort of odd metamorphosis is not predicted by evolution. It's an idea promoted by such idiots as Ray Comfort who attack a strawman of evolution by using the most ridiculous claim possible, even though that claim has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution itself. Please stop perpetuating their lies. Evolution does not predict or even give credence to the idea that one creature should "morph" into another. Evolution is about the slow, generational changes in a given population guided by natural selection, not Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

ICANT writes

quote:

---

I hunt the Internet for information of any animal ever becoming another animal. There is no place I find that so states.

---

You have a strawman concept of what evolution is. Note that I'm not saying I believe in evolution, but if you want to "disprove" evolution make sure you know what it is first. Arguing against strawman evolution just makes you look... dumb.Edited by teen4christ, : Added signature. I keep forgetting to do that.

---

http://millionfagmarch.com/Date: March 30, 2008
Time: 11:00 AMWhere: Westboro Baptist Church, Topeka, KSRequirements: This is not a “gay-only” event. Just come with the ability to send a message to the WBC and Fred Phelps that intolerance is unacceptable.

So strawmanning is justified by personal incredulity? And the analogy doesn't claim otherwise. But if we breed a specific species of fruit fly, seperate a group from the main population, and add a selective pressure (mild amounts of a pesticide, forinstance), the seperated population will eventually develop into an organism very similar to but not identical to the original population. If we do such things for long enough, the two populations will no longer interbreed, and a true new species will have formed. We've done this in the lab, ICANT. Your strawmanning of evolution and dishonest remarks regarding analogies meant to help you understand amount to lies. You sure could have fooled me. Nothing you have ever posted has shown that you comprehend what evolution actually claims - only that you understand some very distorted strawman versions of evolution. Evolution has been observed. It is a fact. The mechanism it describes has been extremely accurate in predicting what we should find int he fossil record, and no evidence has ever been shown to disprove it. Crocodiles haven't changed very much in the past few million years either, ICANT. If a species is well-adapted to its biological niche, there will be very little change to that particular species.Of course, now you're shifting the goal posts: you freely admit that new species appeared from your article, which speaks about 330 different species of forams. Now you insist that we haven't seen a foram give birth to something that is not a foram.So where is the cutoff, ICANT? If it's not a new species that you want, what is it? New family? Genara? Order? You're shifting the goalposts to a point where human lifespans dictate that we can never make an experiment to your satisfaction. however, the fossil record has countless examples of what you would call "transitional" species that mark significant changes, like some dinosaur species giving rise to early birds, or the first amphibious fish that came onto land.The fossil record does give the evidence you're claiming does not exist. We also see the evidence in genetics, where genetic similarities are seen even across very different classifications - everything we have discovered, every shred of evidence, fits exactly with what evolution predicts.You have yet to counter it in any way. I still don't believe you actually even understand it, becasue I'd rather believe that than believe that you are deliberately lying after being told this information many times.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

Hi t4c, I do believe in evolution. Evolution = change over time.
I do not believe evolution as preached here.
I know what evolution is. I was born and raised on a farm.
I have taken piney woods rooters and bred them, cross bred them, and over a period of many years produce from an 80 lb wild animal to a 900 lb tame animal.I started out with a hog and I ended up with a hog.Just like in Message 114where 66 millions years ago there was a species of forams. Tony Arnold and Bill Parker found a complete record or forams for a 500,000 year period in which 330 new species appeared. Only thing was they were still forams.I know what evolution is.I also know what is being preached as evolution.If the way I say it sounds stupid so be it.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."

Hi Rahvin, He was still a fruit fly. You get that fruit fly to be something other than a fruit fly then claim it is a fact.Neither has evidence been shown to disprove God either. I gave you evidence for 66 million years of a foram remaining a foram.The same 66 million years man is supposed to have evolved from what was left after the extinction event of 66 million years ago.I am not moving the goal posts. They are right where they have always been. For evolution to be true transmutation has to have occurred many times. There is no evidence. You say there is so where is it? It makes no difference how much change there is if it is the same animal.I will put my horses back up as my avatar. They are both full grown horses. Tell me how they could produce offspring.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."

God gave us the ability to chose to turn away from Him and therefore, be imperfect.

---

Iesous
Christos
H
Theos
H
Uios
SoterJesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.