education of evolution vs. creationism

Originally posted by KellyJay
The coin flip is all fine and good, but like I was saying we are not
talking about infinite time here, we are also not talking about
about getting an infinite number of chances to get it right either!
The window of getting it right would be very small no matter how
much time was before or after the event!

If you have the right material for life in th ...[text shortened]... get started to go down the evolutionary path.

I'll address your other points later.
Kelly

You still fail to understand how quickly things move, and you are still not seeming to understand the basics.

Generation by generation, the 'unsuitable' or more accurately the genes that do not reproduce are removed forever from the system.

Do you understand this (for the fifth time)?

Originally posted by snowinscotland
You still fail to understand how quickly things move, and you are still not seeming to understand the basics.

Generation by generation, the 'unsuitable' or more accurately the genes that do not reproduce are removed forever from the system.

Do you understand this (for the fifth time)?

Really, you don't see 'unfit' anything staying in the family tree, there
isn't a predisposition towards sickle cell, heart defects, diabetes within
some family lineage? Good and bad go forward, there isn't a filter
that says this is good keep this and that is bad don't bring this
forward, it all goes forward as long as it is there. That being said,
more bad things occur due to mutations than good as things break
down or weaken things that are. The argument can be made that
more life forms are evolving as they break down instead of improving
over time when it comes to changes.
Kelly

Originally posted by timebombted
If I misinterpret your last passage, please forgive, but to summarize it seems you are hinting that the rate of radioactive decay has not been constant in the past and it may have stopped and started at unknown points in time?

If this is not what you are talking about, please can you be specific?

If this is what you are talking about, then can you please direct me to some line of evidence showing this? or is it merely your belief?

I've tried to explain it before, but I gave up. Most people here are just too dumb to understand an argument.
Good luck

Originally posted by KellyJay
The only thing I'd say about that rate of decay is we have only
been looking at it for a short time period, so the window isn't all
that big to really know what happens over thousands of years let
alone millions and so on.
Kelly

Thanks for the honest answer, I have no agenda like trying to change your mind...... I just like to understand your position.

If the dates radioactive decay produced didn't conflict with the "young earth" theory would you still have a problem with it?

Originally posted by timebombted
Thanks for the honest answer, I have no agenda like trying to change your mind...... I just like to understand your position.

If the dates radioactive decay produced didn't conflict with the "young earth" theory would you still have a problem with it?

I'm not married to a young earth, I know a great many people that
believe it to be much older that know scripture better than I do. The
gap theory suggests the earth is much older than the 7K that has
been put forward. I do believe in the young earth due to how I view
scripture and what people have suggesting it is much older. I think
what is before us can appear to be exactly as it is with either an old or
a young earth with respect to age, mainly due to assumptions we have
to make to push either age young or old as factual.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm not married to a young earth, I know a great many people that
believe it to be much older that know scripture better than I do. The
gap theory suggests the earth is much older than the 7K that has
been put forward. I do believe in the young earth due to how I view
scripture and what people have suggesting it is much older. I think
what is before us ...[text shortened]... , mainly due to assumptions we have
to make to push either age young or old as factual.
Kelly

Thanks again for sharing your belief KJ

Regards

Originally posted by KellyJay
Really, you don't see 'unfit' anything staying in the family tree, there
isn't a predisposition towards sickle cell, heart defects, diabetes within
some family lineage? Good and bad go forward, there isn't a filter
that says this is good keep this and that is bad don't bring this
forward, it all goes forward as long as it is there. That being said,
mor ...[text shortened]... olving as they break down instead of improving
over time when it comes to changes.
Kelly

This really isn't that complicated, and there is no 'good' or 'bad' here.

The genes that do not reproduce are removed forever from the system.

Do you understand this (for the sixth time)?

Originally posted by snowinscotland
This really isn't that complicated, and there is no 'good' or 'bad' here.

The genes that do not reproduce are removed forever from the system.

Do you understand this (for the sixth time)?

Yes, if they are not there they do not move forward, it is what I said
the first time it came up in conversation.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes, if they are not there they do not move forward, it is what I said
the first time it came up in conversation.
Kelly

So you understand that, in one generation, there is a change in the genepool?

Originally posted by snowinscotland
So you understand that, in one generation, there is a change in the genepool?

Do you want me to repeat myself again and again for some reason?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Do you want me to repeat myself again and again for some reason?
Kelly

Is there a reason why you answer a question with a question?

😉

Originally posted by snowinscotland
Is there a reason why you answer a question with a question?

😉

Because I get tired of having to say the same thing over again.
Kelly

Originally posted by timebombted
Thanks for the honest answer, I have no agenda like trying to change your mind...... I just like to understand your position.

If the dates radioactive decay produced didn't conflict with the "young earth" theory would you still have a problem with it?

I would have the same issue if it agrees with the young earth or not.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Because I get tired of having to say the same thing over again.
Kelly

Perhaps the message isn't getting across? I know there are a few like you on this forum.

Anyway, the significance of the change in the total population genetic potential is huge, as I'm sure you will agree, when you have mused on it for a while. It took me a few years, and I don't consider myself that daft.

Over just one generation, the future has changed, forever, irrevocably, and it is all geared towards slicker, more effective, more efficient (read lazy, and you might get a different slant on it) generation. The organism that survives (usually) has done the bare minimum to be that tiny notch better that the next one. And of course all these concepts do not tie easily with the basics of Christianity (especially Protestantism, which suggests hard work etc etc etc is a 'good' thing). But it is there, nevertheless, and everywhere you look around you, evolution happens. Pesticide resistant weeds, hospital 'bugs' resistant to disinfectants, dogs, and as we have seen, human generations that we can see show natural selection in action, in just one generation changes happen. Add allele changes, lots more things start to happen.

Originally posted by snowinscotland
Perhaps the message isn't getting across? I know there are a few like you on this forum.

Anyway, the significance of the change in the total population genetic potential is huge, as I'm sure you will agree, when you have mused on it for a while. It took me a few years, and I don't consider myself that daft.

Over just one generation, the future h just one generation changes happen. Add allele changes, lots more things start to happen.

I guess I’m daft because I don’t understand your point? We have
talked about large changes, in that something nasty could happen
that could be quite significant, or large in developing a new system.
We have talked about once something wasn’t passed down it was lost,
changing the future forever for that species, you seem to think that
these types of things could lead to more effective and efficient
generations, I don’t necessarily agree with that, to me it could be like
the creation of a subspecies losing the ability to mate with whatever
group it used to belong to before it lost something and made it a
little unique; that does not mean it is more effective or efficient over
all, it may fill a niche better. I have no idea why you are bringing up
Christianity into this, but you don’t see any grand changes in form
occur in the here and now you assume they do over time.
Kelly