Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,217 Year: 5,474/9,624 Month: 499/323 Week: 139/204 Day: 9/4 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where is the evidence for evolution?
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 367 (30131)
01-24-2003 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by drummachine
01-23-2003 9:30 PM


That's a very good question..and the answer is the evidence points toward creation and not evolution. As you'll see if you really seek the truth, there is no evidence for macro-evolution (changing from one species to another gradually over time)..however there is variation within a species, as in different kinds of dogs, or finches or salmon...but these species never become a different species...this kind of minor variation within the species is called micro-evolution. You'll see that nobody argues over that one. But it seems that every evolutionist wants to extrapolate micro to macro by arguing that if little changes can happen why can't big?
In reality, you have probably noticed that everything around you has been designed by an intelligent designer (cars, houses, bridges, watches, etc)...life and this universe we live in, is so much more complex than those things...only an Intelligent Designer (God) could have created it.
Try these instead:
Creation SuperLibrary [HOME] - a feature of ChristianAnswers.Net
Northwest Creation Network
Page not found | Creation Safaris
Answers in Genesis
http://www.trueorigin.org/
The Institute for Creation Research | The Institute for Creation Research
------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by drummachine, posted 01-23-2003 9:30 PM drummachine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Brian, posted 01-24-2003 4:13 PM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 21 by nator, posted 01-27-2003 10:14 AM DanskerMan has replied
 Message 118 by DBlevins, posted 02-08-2003 4:26 AM DanskerMan has not replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 367 (30155)
01-24-2003 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Bald ape
01-24-2003 8:40 PM


Your definition of evolution is then something like "gradual change over time"...that's fine for things like car "evolution", but that doesn't explain macro-evolution. Also, like the watch, ALL the components were DESIGNED, they didn't just magically make themselves from star dust and then adhere and interlock with each other to form a watch by unbelievable odds. A designer or designers, were involved in your information scenario. We can't escape the reality that time, chance and natural accidents cannot create what only a Supreme God CAN!!
------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Bald ape, posted 01-24-2003 8:40 PM Bald ape has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by edge, posted 01-24-2003 11:46 PM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 01-27-2003 1:34 PM DanskerMan has not replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 367 (30323)
01-27-2003 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by nator
01-27-2003 10:14 AM


schraf: "I notice that sonnike urges you to read religious websites instead of science websites to learn about science."
---------------
Nice try schraf. My websites are no more religious/non-science than yours are. Your religion is just different ie. evo-dogma.
Calling a "car" a "bicycle", doesn't make it a bicycle. Don't try to pretend that evo-dogma is un-biased science.
------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by nator, posted 01-27-2003 10:14 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by nator, posted 01-27-2003 1:44 PM DanskerMan has not replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 367 (30336)
01-27-2003 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by nator
01-27-2003 10:14 AM


schraf: "I would encourage you to look at all kinds of sites and to judge for yourself which ones have the most sound research and logic and verifiability behind them."
--------------------------------------------
This might be a once in a lifetime thing, but I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with that statement!
Study BOTH sides, and see which makes more sense.
Regards,
S
------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by nator, posted 01-27-2003 10:14 AM nator has not replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 367 (30444)
01-28-2003 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by John
01-28-2003 11:10 AM


The problem is not WHETHER dr. Borger can educate you fine people, but rather if you are WILLING to clear your minds of your pre-conceived views, and learn something new.
cheers,
S

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by John, posted 01-28-2003 11:10 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by John, posted 01-28-2003 7:20 PM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 37 by Andya Primanda, posted 01-29-2003 2:06 AM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 42 by derwood, posted 01-29-2003 2:35 PM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 46 by nator, posted 01-30-2003 9:16 AM DanskerMan has replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 367 (30699)
01-30-2003 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by nator
01-30-2003 9:16 AM


"I asked for the link to this psper, and I read it and understood it, and the authors were NOT claiming anything at all about intelligent design of the horse leg. They used the words "apparent design" to make the distinction between what used to be understood about why this particular muscle was so large and what this new research has uncovered, which was that the muscle was so large because it absorbed a lot of vibration during the gallop, not because it needed to be so large to move the limb."
----------------------------------------
You said it though Schraf,... "apparant design" that is just the evolutionary blindfold that prevents you from recognizing ACTUAL design. For years this horse fallacy has been "preached" as evolutionary proof of horse evolution, until they realized the function. Now it is called "apparant" design. If you would simply accept your Maker, you could appreciate such wonderful actual design.
If I tried to convince you or anyone else that the Eiffel tower was not designed and that it came together by time, chance and natural selection...I would be laughed off the face of this earth...yet the dogma of anti-God evolutionary thinking is literally FORCED upon the un-questioning public.
Regards,
S
p.s. I do have one other thing in common with you...I looove food!
------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by nator, posted 01-30-2003 9:16 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by David unfamous, posted 01-30-2003 12:40 PM DanskerMan has replied
 Message 54 by nator, posted 02-03-2003 10:55 AM DanskerMan has replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 367 (31122)
02-03-2003 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by David unfamous
01-30-2003 12:40 PM


David: (S:If I tried to convince you or anyone else that the Eiffel tower was not designed and that it came together by time, chance and natural selection...I would be laughed off the face of this earth)
Using the same logic:
If I tried to convince the world iron is a liquid, I would be laughed of the face of the earth. Therefore, water must be a solid.
S: uuuh no..that's just silly
(S:Yet the dogma of anti-God evolutionary thinking is literally FORCED upon the un-questioning public.)
David: Evolution is a theory based on that which we observe, not an attempt to offend the religious. Why you think any form of science is 'forced' upon the unquestioning public I don't know. Especially as religious study is compulsary in just about every school on the planet, yet science is just brushed upon.
S: So that's why we have science teachers saying things like: "We have fossil evidence for evolution. It's a fact. And I'll dare to say it. It's a fact," said Frisby, who teaches at Shawnee Mission Northwest High School, outside Kansas City. "What else will the state board do? Will they take out verbs from English for some political or religious reason?"
Error
Oh no, that doesn't sound dogmatic at all....
Regards,
S
------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by David unfamous, posted 01-30-2003 12:40 PM David unfamous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by nator, posted 02-03-2003 11:04 AM DanskerMan has not replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 367 (31127)
02-03-2003 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by nator
02-03-2003 10:55 AM


Schraf: "Um, yes, you would be laughed off the face of the Earth, because the Eiffel tower and other inanimate manmade objects DON'T REPRODUCE. Only things that are ALIVE and REPRODUCE are subject to evolutionary forces. "
--------------------------------
Yes I know you people are hooked on that fact and I suppose that that is the blindfold which prevents you from recognizing and appreciating the DESIGNED world you live in.
Well, maybe some day....there's always hope.
Regards,
S
------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by nator, posted 02-03-2003 10:55 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Percy, posted 02-03-2003 12:30 PM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 58 by nator, posted 02-04-2003 9:13 AM DanskerMan has replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 367 (31267)
02-04-2003 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by nator
02-04-2003 9:13 AM


quote:
Exactly. As percy said, it is a FACT that inanimate objects do not reproduce themselves, so are therfore not subject to evolutionary forces.
It is a FACT that things that are alive are subject to evolutionary forces. We observe those forces at work on those alive, reproducing things both in the lab and in the field.
All you observe is variation within a species, NOT variation mutating to a higher organsism. You observe micro-evolution, de-volution.
You people with your bogus magic wand which determines what does and does not qualify as design. Your "evolutionary forces" have never been observed to add complexity and new information to an organism causing it to change into a higher organism of a different species.
You are blind because you do not recognize the REAL force, namely the Creator, Jesus Christ.
...There is still hope for you though.
Regards,
S
------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by nator, posted 02-04-2003 9:13 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Karl, posted 02-04-2003 12:07 PM DanskerMan has replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 367 (31294)
02-04-2003 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Karl
02-04-2003 12:07 PM


quote:
Karl: One salmon species becoming two.
Wait for the wails "but they're still salmon!"
Of course they bloody are! This is only 60 generations.
Now tell me. What is the barrier that stops much larger changes occuring over 60,000 generations?
LOL...love those bloody englishmen.
Haven't we been thru this before? The barrier is that there is only so much information in the genome, and the information required to change a fish into a reptile say, is NOT THERE, and it will NEVER generate by random mutation and natural selection.
Let me ask you something, why do you presume that it could happen in 60,000 generations?
cheers,
S
------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Karl, posted 02-04-2003 12:07 PM Karl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Primordial Egg, posted 02-04-2003 12:31 PM DanskerMan has replied
 Message 64 by Percy, posted 02-04-2003 2:39 PM DanskerMan has replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 367 (31315)
02-04-2003 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Primordial Egg
02-04-2003 12:31 PM


quote:
So, according to your "limited information" idea, where did the information come from to change one species of salmon into two?
PE
First of all, the article is clear that they can still interbreed, and that it's not really a separate species as you might like:
"Hendry says that the differences documented are less than those typically used to delineate separate species. The key focus of this paper is that the processes leading to speciation can happen much more quickly than anyone had previously supposed, he says."
To answer your question, the information that allowed this variation was programmed in the genome from the beginning. Nothing new was added.
Regards,
S
------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Primordial Egg, posted 02-04-2003 12:31 PM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Primordial Egg, posted 02-05-2003 10:22 AM DanskerMan has not replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 367 (31330)
02-04-2003 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Percy
02-04-2003 2:39 PM


quote:
Mutation is the source of new information, and natural selection is the pruning mechanism that decides which mutations pass on to the next generation.
--Percy
(emphasis added)
Gee, if I didn't know any better, I would say that it sounds an awful lot like INTELLIGENCE that which you are describing.
Words like "source", "pruning mechanism" and "decides"....doesn't sound like a random un-guided naturalistic accidental phenomenon to me...
Regards,
S
------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Percy, posted 02-04-2003 2:39 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Coragyps, posted 02-04-2003 4:24 PM DanskerMan has replied
 Message 68 by Chavalon, posted 02-04-2003 4:40 PM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 74 by Percy, posted 02-04-2003 9:52 PM DanskerMan has not replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 367 (31338)
02-04-2003 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Coragyps
02-04-2003 4:24 PM


quote:
You're telling us that you do know better?
You're just playing word games, Sonnike.
I'm not the one who attributed intelligent characteristics to the mystical "evo-force"...
S.
------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Coragyps, posted 02-04-2003 4:24 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by derwood, posted 02-04-2003 4:42 PM DanskerMan has replied
 Message 70 by PaulK, posted 02-04-2003 4:57 PM DanskerMan has not replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 367 (31346)
02-04-2003 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by derwood
02-04-2003 4:42 PM


SLPx, would any answer actually satisfy you and possibly convince you?
S.
------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by derwood, posted 02-04-2003 4:42 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by mark24, posted 02-04-2003 5:58 PM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 126 by derwood, posted 02-10-2003 9:45 AM DanskerMan has replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 367 (31382)
02-05-2003 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Percy
02-04-2003 2:39 PM


quote:
During reproduction let's say a mutation occurs in one nucleotide of allele B, thereby producing new allele C, so now the population's gene pool has increased in size by one allele (note that C differs from B in only a single nucleotide):
A: AAGCTTGTAACAA
B: CCGTCATTCGATC
C: CCGTCACTCGATC
Percy, could you give a real life example of this?
S.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Percy, posted 02-04-2003 2:39 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Percy, posted 02-05-2003 8:41 AM DanskerMan has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024