At what order of complexity...

Originally posted by C Hess
When the pictures (in this case the fossil record) matches the story (evolutionary theory) I
tend to hold that story plausible. When the same pictures (fossil record) doesn't match the
story (intelligent design) unless you include untestable premises (non-consistent natural
laws and instant creation), I find that story implausible. I don't know, it's just how my brain
operates.

Okay! When the pictures match someone's story, not sure how that
plays out in reality. This fossil looks like it could be this or that so the
two must be related? How, well there was a picture?

Is it sort of like that?

Intelligent design in my opinion is not science, for the same reason I do
not believe evolution is either. Both groups of people have a belief they
wish to push off on others and claim their science proves it.

I guess the evolutionist have pretty pictures than the Intelligent design
people.
Kelly

edit: I do believe much of evolution is science, just not all of what
everyone says about do I believe is true.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The problem I see with evolution is that although butterflies change just as humans do, butterflies always change into butterflies and humans always change into humans. That is what you and many others call evolution, however, others. like me, see that as variation of the same kind and not evolution at all.

That an entirely new species of butterfly can evolve from an earlier species is all the
evidence required to support evolutionary theory as a whole. Unless you can show some
clear limitation in the inner workings of a cell that would prevent evolution to continue
beyond your creationist idea of "kinds", evolutionary theory stands untarnished by
your mere assertion that that's the case.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Okay! When the pictures match someone's story, not sure how that
plays out in reality. This fossil looks like it could be this or that so the
two much be related? How, well there was a picture?

Is it sort of like that?

Intelligent design in my opinion is not science, for the same reason I do
not believe evolution is either. Both groups of people ha ...[text shortened]... it.

I guess the evolutionist have pretty pictures than the Intelligent design
people.
Kelly

I don't even understand this post. Could you please calm down, think it through, and use a
grammar and spell checker, because what you just wrote makes absolutely no sense. You
have to realise I'm not from an english speaking country so I need clear english to
understand what you're trying to say.

Originally posted by C Hess
That an entirely new species of butterfly can evolve from an earlier species is all the
evidence required to support evolutionary theory as a whole. Unless you can show some
clear limitation in the inner workings of a cell that would prevent evolution to continue
beyond your creationist idea of "kinds", evolutionary theory stands untarnished by
your mere assertion that that's the case.

An entirely new species of butterfly can evolve from an earlier species
(I assume from an earlier species of butterfly), and you think that this
supports evolutionary theory as a whole? I wonder how you can say that?
Does getting butterflies from butterflies show us how we got say birds,
trees, jellyfish, from a single cell over time? I get changes within
species, but not one completely different one unto another. Exactly how
does butterfly to butterfly support evolutionary theory as a whole?
Kelly

Originally posted by C Hess
I don't even understand this post. Could you please calm down, think it through, and use a
grammar and spell checker, because what you just wrote makes absolutely no sense. You
have to realise I'm not from an english speaking country so I need clear english to
understand what you're trying to say.

Calm down? I'm not shouting or railing against you. I just don't follow
how looking at a picture where someone puts together a story about it
means that this proves anything. I'd like for you to explain that to me.
Kelly

Originally posted by C Hess
I don't even understand this post. Could you please calm down, think it through, and use a
grammar and spell checker, because what you just wrote makes absolutely no sense. You
have to realise I'm not from an english speaking country so I need clear english to
understand what you're trying to say.

You said if the picture and story look like they go together you'd buy
into story. I'm asking you, if you are saying something along this line,
if a fossil looks like it could be related to two different creatures, and
someone comes along, and says this is where the those two creatures
were related, that is all it takes for you? Just make it sound possible?
Kelly

Originally posted by C Hess
I don't even understand this post. Could you please calm down, think it through, and use a
grammar and spell checker, because what you just wrote makes absolutely no sense. You
have to realise I'm not from an english speaking country so I need clear english to
understand what you're trying to say.

Sorry for my poorly worded post, I tried to correct it.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
An entirely new species of butterfly can evolve from an earlier species
(I assume from an earlier species of butterfly), and you think that this
supports evolutionary theory as a whole? I wonder how you can say that?
Does getting butterflies from butterflies show us how we got say birds,
trees, jellyfish, from a single cell over time? I get changes with ...[text shortened]... another. Exactly how
does butterfly to butterfly support evolutionary theory as a whole?
Kelly

At the very core, evolutionary theory states that small changes accumulating over time can
lead to entirely new forms of life. This is self-evident and can be easily demonstrated. Not
only that, but it can easily be demonstrated that accumulated small changes over time
inevitably leads to entirely new forms. In other words, all you need to demonstrate that
evolution is happening in nature is to observe such changes. What you need to
demonstrate if you still reject evolutionary theory, is how tiny changes accumulated over
time absolutely cannot lead to entirely new forms.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Sorry for my poorly worded post, I tried to correct it.
Kelly

The thing theists can't or won't understand is butterflies turning color or some such is just as much a part of evolution as the turning of an Elephant into a Manatee (Which happens to be true, Manatee's are deeply related to Elephants). It is just that creationists who insist on the Earth being 6000 odd years old cannot accept million year dates for the changes to take place. That is entirely YOUR problem and no problem of science.

It is too bad you and your buddies are stuck on this 6000 year old crap because A) It's not even CLOSE to the truth and B) it keeps you tied to an infantile interpretation of life on Earth.

When you finally realize Earth really is many millions of years old you will start the process of maturing emotionally.

Originally posted by C Hess
At the very core, evolutionary theory states that small changes accumulating over time can
lead to entirely new forms of life. This is self-evident and can be easily demonstrated. Not
only that, but it can easily be demonstrated that accumulated small changes over time
inevitably leads to entirely new forms. In other words, all you need to demonstrate t ...[text shortened]... heory, is how tiny changes accumulated over
time absolutely cannot lead to entirely new forms.

The Holy Bible says they will reproduce after their kind, that is, we see dogs reproducing after a dog kind. They may reproduce different varieties and forms (small and large, long hair and short hair, etc.), but they are still reproducing a dog kind. A dog will never becomes a giraffe or an elephant or a whale as evolutionists claim might happen, because God has programmed the animals so that will not happen.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Holy Bible says they will reproduce after their kind, that is, we see dogs reproducing after a dog kind. They may reproduce different varieties and forms (small and large, long hair and short hair, etc.), but they are still reproducing a dog kind. A dog will never becomes a giraffe or an elephant or a whale as evolutionists claim might happen, because God has programmed the animals so that will not happen.

We can tell what animals changed into other animals by the fossil record, for instance manatees are closely related to elephants so over millions of years they evolved to become total water creatures and we see that in the fossil record.

All you have is your anti science stance but we have 200 years of multigenerations of scientists refining the works of past scientists and they all agree this is what happened.

You have NOTHING but biblical fairy tales and you know it.

Read my post about why god said don't eat pig. Not something a god would say. It would be more interested in teaching the facts of the situation not making it a religious doctrine when in fact it is a simple medical condition.

Just more biblical BS that doesn't need a god to come up with these stories. The dudes that wrote that about pigs knew nothing about trichinosis so they just banned eating pig which still flies today in Jewish law. Even though modern Jews knows exactly what causes people to get sick eating pig and even though they know what to do about it, the biblical tale still sticks to them and the same to you.

That should be a lesson to you but of course it won't be.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Holy Bible says they will reproduce after their kind, that is, we see dogs reproducing after a dog kind. They may reproduce different varieties and forms (small and large, long hair and short hair, etc.), but they are still reproducing a dog kind. A dog will never becomes a giraffe or an elephant or a whale as evolutionists claim might happen, because God has programmed the animals so that will not happen.

Until you can point out the exact location in the so called "programming" of life, that says:
introduce at random tiny changes every now and then, but don't allow these tiny changes
to accumulate into larger ones, I can't help but distrust you in this. I'm sorry.

Just as is the case with the question of god's very existence, the burden of proof seems to
lie in your hands regarding creation too.

Originally posted by C Hess
At the very core, evolutionary theory states that small changes accumulating over time can
lead to entirely new forms of life. This is self-evident and can be easily demonstrated. Not
only that, but it can easily be demonstrated that accumulated small changes over time
inevitably leads to entirely new forms. In other words, all you need to demonstrate t ...[text shortened]... heory, is how tiny changes accumulated over
time absolutely cannot lead to entirely new forms.

I agree and stating what you believe does not mean what you believe is
being demonstrated either. We both agree that you can see changes as we
have already talked about with butterflies. What you seem to wish to
promote that change will and can continue taking one life form into a
completely different type, leaving behind a butterfly and turning it into a
completely different type of creature. It does not automatically follow that
one means the other is true, it is not self-evident, except of course in the
mind of a true believer *religion anyone*!
Kelly

Originally posted by sonhouse
The thing theists can't or won't understand is butterflies turning color or some such is just as much a part of evolution as the turning of an Elephant into a Manatee (Which happens to be true, Manatee's are deeply related to Elephants). It is just that creationists who insist on the Earth being 6000 odd years old cannot accept million year dates for the c ...[text shortened]... e Earth really is many millions of years old you will start the process of maturing emotionally.

How much time is not an issue with me in this discussion! I can be
completely off and you can have billions of years, that does not change the
issues I have with evolution, nor does it change the issues I have with
abiogenesis either. Since it isn't the length of time that I see as an issue,
but the timings of events that must occur in the very short time that they
need to happen before what is required is lost. Getting all the proper
chemicals in one place at the same time, before they react with something
else that changes the conditions into something else is problematic in my
opinion. In a controlled environment you can mix whatever you like at just
the right time, and keep all the undesirable substances out completely, but
in an uncontrolled environment I just don't see that as clear cut as the true
believers do when it comes to abiogenesis or evolution.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I agree and stating what you believe does not mean what you believe is
being demonstrated either. We both agree that you can see changes as we
have already talked about with butterflies. What you seem to wish to
promote that change will and can continue taking one life form into a
completely different type, leaving behind a butterfly and turning it into ...[text shortened]... is not self-evident, except of course in the
mind of a true believer *religion anyone*!
Kelly

It is self-evident too! 😛

No, seriously, it is self-evident. Take a piece of paper and draw a line. Now, take another
piece of paper and duplicate the line, but with one, hardly noticable change. Now, take a
third piece of paper, draw a copy of the second line with yet another tiny change. Keep
doing this, say, 55000 times. Now, take the first paper and the 55000'th paper and compare
them. There you go.