1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayPerhaps, you'd still be working in a time scale which exceeds the biblical creation story by 500,000 times, and the biblical order of creation would still be wrong. Furthermore, you'd have to rely on some 'force' for which there is absolutely no physical proof or even substantive evidence. Low parsimony. Evolutionary theory is simpler, since it only relies on that which is testable.
Actually it would support the Biblical view, since during the creation
story God created everything and told them to multiply after their
own kind. The changes that occur within kind after that would be
toward filling out the variety of life we see today, but it would always
be within kind. There would not be changes, like taking a worm and
latter on X , like going from a
worm to a whale. I don’t believe those dots were ever connected!
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaywHATEVER ANSWER YOU GIVE IS ALWAYS COUCHED IN TERMS THAT ALLOWS 'MICRO-EVOLUTION' AND DENIES 'MACRO EVOLUTION'. You seek to win the arguemnt by using different terns of reference to the rest of the world
No matter what answer I give that can be said, not good enough.
Kelly
(sorry about the caps lock)
Originally posted by micarrTypically, when one declares there are mistakes in a post...they point
Yes spot on again Kelly never wrong except for all the mistakes in your posts but not to worry carry on and dont let reality bother you in any way at all and couninue pontificating on matters you clearly know so much about. As I said before you damage your religion more than you harm science with this ignorant claptrap but please keep going you have science on the ropes I think. Maybe you should write a book with all this great stuff?
them out. You it seems have a different take; attack the poster leave
the arguments to others. Pardon me if I ignore you from here on out.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzI beg to differ (bet you didn't see that coming) evolution's evidence
Perhaps, you'd still be working in a time scale which exceeds the biblical creation story by 500,000 times, and the biblical order of creation would still be wrong. Furthermore, you'd have to rely on some 'force' for which there is absolutely no physical proof or even substantive evidence. Low parsimony. Evolutionary theory is simpler, since it only relies on that which is testable.
that supports change we can see and record, happens when, and to
what degree? I'd say in the here and now, all that we have we have
in the here in now has none that takes us from worm to whale.
No one again is saying (at least I have not been) that there isn't
change, only that it has never been recorded to the degree of worm
to whale, or something like new organs where there were none
before. What we do see are changes, that also supports there being
several life forms at the beginning, instead of changing just one
simple life form through evolution into all the vast array we see today.
I'm not sure what your refering to when you speak about some
'force' that there isn't any proof for? What do you mean by that?
I honestly don't know what you mean, a force that does what when
it comes to evolution? We are talking about the process that has
life changing over time correct? That process would be the same
no matter which starting position life began at, so I don't know
what 'force' you are refering too.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayCreationism. Relies on God being real. No evidence though, see?
I beg to differ (bet you didn't see that coming) evolution's evidence
that supports change we can see and record, happens when, and to
what degree? I'd say in the here and now, all that we have we have
in the here in now has none that takes us from worm to whale.
No one again is saying (at least I have not been) that there isn't
change, only that it g position life began at, so I don't know
what 'force' you are refering too.
Kelly
I knew you'd differ, you old dog! Ha ha! I appreciate that we've never seen 'worm to whale', but we've only been looking for around 0.0000003% of evlutionary history. And we've never seen a mass exinction event close up and personal. We do know that you have, for example, 10 forms of life up until a mass exinction, which becomes 1 or 2 immediately after that mass exinction, and then within a few dozen strata back to 10 life forms, which all look curiously similar to those which survived the mass exinction. Kinda curious, huh? Now, an evolutionary biologist would say "look, divergence of species", I don't know what a creationist would say. Possibly something along the lines if "dum de dum, can't hear you - fingers in ears..."
Originally posted by scottishinnzNow wait a minute! (I was hoping you were going to say that!) 🙂
Creationism. Relies on God being real. No evidence though, see?
I knew you'd differ, you old dog! Ha ha! I appreciate that we've never seen 'worm to whale', but we've only been looking for around 0.0000003% of evlutionary history. And we've never seen a mass exinction event close up and personal. We do know that you have, for example, 10 forms ...[text shortened]... sibly something along the lines if "dum de dum, can't hear you - fingers in ears..."
We are talking about evolution, not creation are we not?
If you want to bring in creation, we also need to bring in the everything
came from what and when you have to offer as well! Since after all
abio-genesis is not the same subject as evolution. You want to
assume nothing started it, I want to assume someone did, but that
is again, creation and abio-genesis, not evolution as a topic.
You do not know how it all started do you?
The process is all we see, and if you are wondering at all about how
it got started, than I'd say there is room for another discussion.
Kelly
Originally posted by no1marauderThat is my full point with evolution and your belief system!
Until you get to a wolf (or vice versa). Of course species that directly evolve from another species are going to be "similiar"; what else would they be? Evolution takes place in gradual steps. Usually the definition of a species has to do with interbreeding in the wild; if an animal can't breed with another animal it's of a different species (though the ...[text shortened]... ce millions of years ago is just petty. But if that's what makes you happy, stay ignorant.
You can see small changes within kinds, dogs to wolves or
the other way around who knows. You don't see worm to whale,
or grass to eagle. Which is where I say you have faith to accept
that as a fact, instead of the unwitnessed, unrecorded, only
theoried process that part of your belief system really is.
Kelly
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeYou believe that when you speak, it isn't to keep your belief
wHATEVER ANSWER YOU GIVE IS ALWAYS COUCHED IN TERMS THAT ALLOWS 'MICRO-EVOLUTION' AND DENIES 'MACRO EVOLUTION'. You seek to win the arguemnt by using different terns of reference to the rest of the world
(sorry about the caps lock)
system intact as well? You don't think that is a common trait
among all people? I have never seen Macro evolution, and
you have not either, so it is a matter of faith for you to say
it has occured, because no one has either.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayYou're the one who wants independant creation (or something - not sure what) of different "kinds". Without evolution, something needs to create those "kinds". So you brought it up, indirectly, not me!
Now wait a minute! (I was hoping you were going to say that!) 🙂
We are talking about evolution, not creation are we not?
If you want to bring in creation, we also need to bring in the everything
came from what and when you have to offer as well! Since after all
abio-genesis is not the same subject as evolution. You want to
assume nothing started ...[text shortened]... ing at all about how
it got started, than I'd say there is room for another discussion.
Kelly
Want to deal with the other (real) points in my post?
Oh, and no, at the moment I don't need to bring in abiogenesis, within a debate about divergence of species by evolution, it is enough to accept that life did start.
Ok, if it is wrong
1) where did you come from?
2) how did he BIG BANG (or whatever happened) happen (please explain in full detail as
I'm sure we all want to know this)?
3) Why do avalances occur?
4) How many billions, no trillions, no gadzillions of light years have we been living
on this planet? I mean, hey, if the Bible is wrong then when the last Tsunami hit
we should ALL have died. Who do you think it was that kept the earth on its axis
after the Tsunami...Santa Claus???? I think not.
So, please, if the Bible is wrong, explain (IN LARGE DETAIL) why.
4 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzIt is enough to accept that life did start? Really, and you know
You're the one who wants independant creation (or something - not sure what) of different "kinds". Without evolution, something needs to create those "kinds". So you brought it up, indirectly, not me!
Want to deal with the other (real) points in my post?
Oh, and no, at the moment I don't need to bring in abiogenesis, within a debate about divergence of species by evolution, it is enough to accept that life [b]did start.[/b]
how and the details of that event? The process regardless on how
it started goes on, and no one is saying within life that there
aren’t small changes, but you are saying something else has
occurred, is occurring, and will occur that has not been witnessed,
recorded, or duplicated which is the amount of change that can take
a worm to whale. Now, with what we see today, what I believe does
fit the process without the process going beyond what we can
witness, record, and duplicate, not so with what you believe, it is
nothing but faith and assumptions on your part.
Life did start, okay, but did rocks, did dirt, did water, all the
pieces of what make up life, and so on? This is a dodge on your
part that, that you don't need to worry about abiogenesis when
you claim you do need to worry about creation. Creation was a
special event, I wasn't there, it must be taken on faith there is
no other way to look at it.
What we can look at today is the process as it is to the degree it
reveals itself, we see your assumption that the changes will do what
you claim are matters of faith that you and the other true believers of
evolution have. Your claim that all the diverse living creatures in this
complex universe came into being with no direction, that the universe
is Godless, is the only thing that keeps you from seeing that.
My points are just as real as yours, what points do you want me to
address that I have not?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayShall we run through the evidence again.
You believe that when you speak, it isn't to keep your belief
system intact as well? You don't think that is a common trait
among all people? I have never seen Macro evolution, and
you have not either, so it is a matter of faith for you to say
it has occured, because no one has either.
Kelly
As I said, you deliberately use a diferent frame of reference. If you want to debate biology and taxonomy then kindly use the established frames of reference used in those fields. Otherwise don't waste your own time.
I could make assertions about Christian theology while making no reference to the established bodies of knowlege in that field. In so doing I would make myself look foolish.