Creation vs. Evolution Debate

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe in evolution, so I don't care about that topic.
The thing that keeps me away from taking anything seriously is someone telling me we
have to give credit for everything, to nothing. Nothing cannot produce anything, let alone
everything! If there is nothing than you don't have energy, heat, matter, left, right, up,
down, There would be nothing t ...[text shortened]... eaningless, unless it is
something we can validate by seeing it play out from beginning to end.

Let's be clear here. You don't 'believe in evolution', you support some form of 'micro-evolution' on steroids.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Let's be clear here. You don't 'believe in evolution', you support some form of 'micro-evolution' on steroids.

I believe in evolution, I do not believe in a common ancestor. Evolutionary changes can
happen within various lifeforms we see it occur with creatures with very short life spans.
Where I draw the line is them turning into something completely different, that is
something we only find in the fossils record where some person in the present suggests
this creature turned into that one. If it were not for people trying to connect the dots no one
would go there either.

It also makes more sense to me that DNA was coded for a reason and allows for change
than the haphazard method those that believe in a common ancestor puts forward.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe in evolution, I do not believe in a common ancestor. Evolutionary changes can
happen within various lifeforms we see it occur with creatures with very short life spans.
Where I draw the line is them turning into something completely different, that is
something we only find in the fossils record where some person in the present suggests
this c ...[text shortened]... lows for change
than the haphazard method those that believe in a common ancestor puts forward.

What you just said means you don't accept evolution.

Originally posted by googlefudge
What you just said means you don't accept evolution.

No, what it means is I don't accept common ancestor, I believe in changes over time.

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, what it means is I don't accept common ancestor, I believe in changes over time.

What it means is that you are rejecting key parts of evolutionary theory that don't happen to
fit your religious beliefs, while making claims that show you clearly don't understand evolutionary
theory, and then you are trying to claim that you accept evolution.

No, you really don't.

If you claim DNA was 'programmed', you don't accept evolution.
If you claim that 'natural selection' was steered [by god], you don't accept evolution.
If you don't accept full speciation and common ancestry, you don't accept evolution.
etc etc

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, what it means is I don't accept common ancestor, I believe in changes over time.

What you describe is 'micro-evolution'. But for these changes to occur in your time frame it's more like 'hyper speed micro-evolution', hence the reference to steroids.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You want me to look at God's creation and NOT say God created it? Why in the world would I do that? It is what I believe to be true, why don't you step back and ponder the
reality of the universe because God created it?

I agree we have no basis for any meaningful discussion, as you seem to think in order
to have one we must agree with how you look at things for it to be meaningful.

You come up with the strangest comments. Sorry to ask, but are you really English speaking?

We have already agreed that the world and universe is God's creation.

Evidence of the WAY he created it is left in the stones, the fossils, the natural elements, the stars and galaxies, etc, and it is up to scientists to find out how the puzzle could be put together.

And they are making huge progress in this area!

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe in evolution, I do not believe in a common ancestor. Evolutionary changes can
happen within various lifeforms we see it occur with creatures with very short life spans.
Where I draw the line is them turning into something completely different, that is
something we only find in the fossils record where some person in the present suggests
this c ...[text shortened]... lows for change
than the haphazard method those that believe in a common ancestor puts forward.

"I believe in evolution, I do not believe in a common ancestor"
the fact that you believe the story of the flood, with its kinds and accelerated evolution (horses turning into zebras, deer, donkeys, unicorns and whatever other horselike creatures) proves you actually do believe in a common ancestor.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"I believe in evolution, I do not believe in a common ancestor"
the fact that you believe the story of the flood, with its kinds and accelerated evolution (horses turning into zebras, deer, donkeys, unicorns and whatever other horselike creatures) proves you actually do believe in a common ancestor.

I believe we were created, each kind of animal was created, and after that the animals
started falling into various and sundry niche through out the world and with them mutating
to best fit where they ended up, and if they could not fit where they ended up, they either
moved on or died due to natural selection. I believe it is programmed into DNA to alter life
within its kind to do this, otherwise I think life would have died out a long time ago falling
to adapt.

Originally posted by googlefudge
What you just said means you don't accept evolution.

Show me where evolution isn't defined by changes over time.

Originally posted by googlefudge
What it means is that you are rejecting key parts of evolutionary theory that don't happen to
fit your religious beliefs, while making claims that show you clearly don't understand evolutionary
theory, and then you are trying to claim that you accept evolution.

No, you really don't.

If you claim DNA was 'programmed', you don't accept evolution. ...[text shortened]... .
If you don't accept full speciation and common ancestry, you don't accept evolution.
etc etc

There is no ONE view of evolution, for crying out loud you have holy document to filter out
the true believers now?

Some people talk about changes happening fast, others slow, they agree in changes.

I believe in mutations except I don't agree they are random.

I agree with changes within kinds over time as they settle into niches through natural
selection.

What I don't agree with is randomness of DNA code being directed current surroundings
altering life to best fit there. What I don't agree with is a very simple lifeform through time,
thriving, dinning, and multiplying, then mutating into the vast array of life we see today.

It is a produce of my beliefs that God is in control, just as it is yours to reject the notion of
God being in control that keeps you from acknowledging God in all of this.

Originally posted by CalJust
You come up with the strangest comments. Sorry to ask, but are you really English speaking?

We have already agreed that the world and universe is God's creation.

[b]Evidence of the WAY he created it is left in the stones, the fossils, the natural elements, the stars and galaxies, etc, and it is up to scientists to find out how the puzzle could be put together.

And they are making huge progress in this area![/b]

It is getting old seeing this type of stuff from you, "Sorry to ask, but are you really English
speaking?" If you cannot refrain your insults I think we can call it quits on all future
discussions. You seem to insult me when you are talking to me, and when you bring my
name up to others without me even being involved, up to you. I don't mind back and forth
but just to be insulting for insulting sake no reason to continue.

Originally posted by KellyJay

What I don't agree with is randomness of DNA code being directed current surroundings
altering life to best fit there. What I don't agree with is a very simple lifeform through time, thriving, dinning, and multiplying, then mutating into the vast array of life we see today.

Curious to know why you are not convinced about simple life forms evolving and mutating over time. How would this be incompatible with the God you believe in? (Apologies if you have already explained, as haven't followed the whole thread).

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Curious to know why you are not convinced about simple life forms evolving and mutating over time. How would this be incompatible with the God you believe in? (Apologies if you have already explained, as haven't followed the whole thread).

There is no evidence for it outside of someone saying this how the fossils are connected.
What we do see are changes where bird beaks size changes, dogs get larger and
smaller, germs become resistant to means that would end them. We see changes, but we
don't see change from one to another. So I accept that there are changes we can see
and monitor them, but I do not accept the DNA programming in each life form altering
itself until some other life form is there which is not related later on to the one it
supposedly came from in history.

Within scripture that is what was told would happen, that life would have off spring after
their own kinds. If God did it, and I believe He did, He wrote the code for life.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you cannot refrain your insults I think we can call it quits on all future discussions. You seem to insult me when you are talking to me, and when you bring my name up to others without me even being involved, up to you. I don't mind back and forth
but just to be insulting for insulting sake no reason to continue.

It is an honest fact that I do not know whether you are not answering my questions (and/or responding to issues that I raise) because you are deliberately avoiding them, or not understanding them.

Either way, I am quite happy to cease discussing anything with you, it is just becoming too frustrating.