Originally posted by FabianFnas
So you are not a creationist anymore then? Hallelujah, even the most persistant ignorants can be educated!

i dont think believing in evolution always rules out creationism?
neither do i think that he feels educated by you;p

Originally posted by zozozozo
How do you experience god then? can u hear him when u focuss enough, or do you just 'feel him' or something?
If so, how would you know the feeling you experience is not something created by your own brain?

How do you experience anyone? Your not going to force God into
making Him do anything, you need to yield to His call on your life,
come when He calls you. You and I are not God, it will be on His terms,
but He has made the way easy and light, the struggles to be good
enough must be cast away, that is only done through taking the offer
that God has granted to us through Jesus Christ who died for our sins.

If you want to prove yourself, you'll not do it before God, if you want
to establish your righteousness it will not be before God. The bottom
line is you must line up your life with reality, He is God and you are
not once that is done things start to line up properly everywhere. The
reason we are to treat each other in love is because of God, not the
righteousness others have, not because they are 'good people' so that
takes out all excuses for us to hate another, and gives us every
reason to forgive and walk in grace and mercy, because we were/are
shown great mercy and grace by God. When man is the most
important thing in the universe it throws all other things into confusion.

James 1 NLT
5 If you need wisdom, ask our generous God, and he will give it to you. He will not rebuke you for asking. 6 But when you ask him, be sure that your faith is in God alone. Do not waver, for a person with divided loyalty is as unsettled as a wave of the sea that is blown and tossed by the wind. 7 Such people should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. 8 Their loyalty is divided between God and the world, and they are unstable in everything they do.

If you know and believe God loves you and wants the best for you
no matter how bad your life has been, the way is open to Him.
Kelly

Originally posted by zozozozo
Why would faults occur more over time? do you mean mutations by faults?
Mutations can be either bad or good or dont make a difference to an organism.

Look at the mutations we see today, do you think the good ones or
the bad ones come in greater numbers? If bad, than would that
be any different earlier in life? If we can see life changing before our
eyes such as flies being born without wings, does that add to the form
of the body or take away, those are major changes we can see. We
have not seen a frog grow wings, or a dog fins.

The thing I have seen here in these forums for evolution building
something new are examples like DDT, which as I pointed out when
those that brought that example up did not show the before and the
after changes. So how did they know those types of things were not
already in place? How do they know that the only thing that is
happening are that the ones with what was required live and those
that didn't have them died? If that were true that should tell you that
at some point all of that life more than likely had those defenses in
their DNA and some portion LOST it and paid the price for it. For all we
know all of things that harm life may have already been in place, we
are just losing our ability to defend ourselves.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
As I have pointed out over and over, I believe in evolution, but I do
not see it as causing life to become more complex over time. Instead
it breaks down; faults becoming worse as time goes by, weaknesses
more pronounced. Where you had very dominate genes, at first gave
way to those those recessive causing variety to creep into species as
life started ...[text shortened]... and effect over time would
produce a lot of different things into the living population.
Kelly

you didn't understand. i am not talking about evolution when i mention diseases and parasites. i am talking about lunch. to diseases, hosts are the lunch. if all hosts are dead, what do those disease eat?

it is like all the eucalyptus trees vanish by magic and the koalas cannot find any other food. so they die. all. extinction. why aren't diseases and parasites extinct?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
you didn't understand. i am not talking about evolution when i mention diseases and parasites. i am talking about lunch. to diseases, hosts are the lunch. if all hosts are dead, what do those disease eat?

it is like all the eucalyptus trees vanish by magic and the koalas cannot find any other food. so they die. all. extinction. why aren't diseases and parasites extinct?

Why would they be? Those things reside where, are they always
manifesting themselves in every host they find, or are some life
forms carriers and others die when they come into contact with
them?

If all life had defenses against those things that caused death like
diseases and parasites yet those things we call diseases and
parasites still lived in life, it would not be until the barriers that
saved life started falling away would those things start to kill off
life forms. That again goes back to my argument with DDT, to
me creating a resistance against a specific threat requires focus and
dedication which is not how the evolutionary process is described.
Kelly

Originally posted by zozozozo
i dont think believing in evolution always rules out creationism?
neither do i think that he feels educated by you;p

There are creationists, and there are fundamental creationsist. KellyJay is fundamentalist, and morover: an extrem fundamentalistic creationist.

The opinion of that god created the evolution is also a notion of creationism, but we can all agree that Kelly is not one of them creationists.

He will never feel educated by me, agree on that. But he is in fact being educated. He's picking up detail after detail that he puts in his own opinions, thus learning and being educated. In the long run he is getting somewhere, but it will take a while.
We have to thank all his debattants for this. Arguing with KJ and give him time to let things sink in in his brains.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why would they be? Those things reside where, are they always
manifesting themselves in every host they find, or are some life
forms carriers and others die when they come into contact with
them?

So was Noah a carrier of all human diseases? Did each animal carry all the diseases specific to that species? Or were bacteria and virus' vegetarians back then too?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So was Noah a carrier of all human diseases? Did each animal carry all the diseases specific to that species? Or were bacteria and virus' vegetarians back then too?

They were carried by something or someone in some means.
KJ

Originally posted by KellyJay
Look at the mutations we see today, do you think the good ones or
the bad ones come in greater numbers? If bad, than would that
be any different earlier in life? If we can see life changing before our
eyes such as flies being born without wings, does that add to the form
of the body or take away, those are major changes we can see. We
have not seen a frog grow wings, or a dog fins.

And what use would those be to frogs? The key points you miss (or selectively ignore) are:
1. Evolution is gradual so full working wings in one generation would not be expected.
2. If you select the structure you want then see if it arose then you are getting the probability all back to front. If you asked instead "do we see frogs gaining new features" the answer would be quite different.

On a side note, there are flying frogs.

The thing I have seen here in these forums for evolution building
something new are examples like DDT, which as I pointed out when
those that brought that example up did not show the before and the
after changes. So how did they know those types of things were not
already in place? How do they know that the only thing that is
happening are that the ones with what was required live and those
that didn't have them died? If that were true that should tell you that
at some point all of that life more than likely had those defenses in
their DNA and some portion LOST it and paid the price for it. For all we
know all of things that harm life may have already been in place, we
are just losing our ability to defend ourselves.
Kelly
But as already pointed out, you have no real argument to back that up. Merely your own incredulity based on a total lack of information.
It must be remembered that evolution is often quite slow especially for organisms whose total population is relatively small or whose generations are fairly long. For us to observe evolution within our life times or even in the period after Charles Darwin we must look at either species that have large populations and short life spans or at populations under highly selective pressures. You have not seen frogs grow wings because they are not under pressure to do so. We have seen however cane toads grow larger and hop further in Australia.
The best way to observe the capacity of evolution is domestic species. It is quite clear that selection can result in very significant changes to an organism and nearly any feature possible can arise if given the right selection criteria and enough time.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And what use would those be to frogs? The key points you miss (or selectively ignore) are:
1. Evolution is gradual so full working wings in one generation would not be expected.
2. If you select the structure you want then see if it arose then you are getting the probability all back to front. If you asked instead "do we see frogs gaining new features" ...[text shortened]... nearly any feature possible can arise if given the right selection criteria and enough time.

Telling me something happens so slow it cannot be seen or measured
isn't proof for it.

If you want to show me frogs getting new features, lets discuss that.

My argument was he didn't show me how his DDT example proved his
point, I gave him other reasons the same thing could have occured
so why should I just accept his version. My argument was very real,
I spelled out exactly how it would have or could have happened without
something new happening in the life forms. If evolution is so slow and
without direction finding a specific path to stop DDT in life would not
be a goal of evolution why would it ever occur? You cannot have it
both ways!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Telling me something happens so slow it cannot be seen or measured
isn't proof for it.

I didn't say it was and you know that - so why make the irrelevant point?

If you want to show me frogs getting new features, lets discuss that.
The only case I know of is Cane toads in Australia where they are spreading they found that the average jump distance and size of toad is much larger on the fringes. This is because there is selection going on as they spread out - the better jumpers spread faster.

My argument was he didn't show me how his DDT example proved his
point, I gave him other reasons the same thing could have occured
so why should I just accept his version. My argument was very real,
I spelled out exactly how it would have or could have happened without
something new happening in the life forms.
And your alternative scenarios are reasonably plausible (one of them anyway). But your reasons for rejecting his scenario did not stand up.

If evolution is so slow and without direction finding a specific path to stop DDT in life would not
be a goal of evolution why would it ever occur? You cannot have it both ways!
Kelly
But 'slow' is relative. The total number of individual mosquitoes in the world is so enormous that mutations that provide protection against DDT might actually be commonplace. The number of frogs in the world is also enormous and they are probably evolving new features all the time. The strawman though is when you specify that they must grow wings. It is far more likely that they would evolve the ability to better survive: higher temperatures / the increased diseases they are experiencing / man made pollution.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I didn't say it was and you know that - so why make the irrelevant point?

[b]If you want to show me frogs getting new features, lets discuss that.
The only case I know of is Cane toads in Australia where they are spreading they found that the average jump distance and size of toad is much larger on the fringes. This is because there is selection g ...[text shortened]... e: higher temperatures / the increased diseases they are experiencing / man made pollution.[/b]

"And your alternative scenarios are reasonably plausible (one of them anyway). But your reasons for rejecting his scenario did not stand up. "

Look at what is being suggested, DDT hits mosquitoes population
most die off and some do not over some generations the mosquitoes
develop a means to fight off DDT. So what is being suggested here?
One that some where exposed to it, fought off the DDT without
evolution at the very beginning, I suppose they were not killed off
why? The very first generation that was hit with DDT if it was so deadly
why were they not all killed, and if they were all killed, why would
evolution starts to change something that was not hit with DDT? There
would be no reason too, to change even if it had to plan for it,
because all the mosquitoes that were hit should have died! Only those
that survived lived to have other off spring, so if those that survived
lived to have off spring, their off spring would carry on the reasons why
they survived in greater numbers would they not? So tell me again,
spell out the reasons why I need to believe evolution had anything at
all to do with the mosquitoes acquiring something new they didn't have
before? For me it seems like good programming and what the
mosquitoes already had was at work nothing new required!
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
I didn't say it was and you know that - so why make the irrelevant point?

[b]If you want to show me frogs getting new features, lets discuss that.
The only case I know of is Cane toads in Australia where they are spreading they found that the average jump distance and size of toad is much larger on the fringes. This is because there is selection g ...[text shortened]... e: higher temperatures / the increased diseases they are experiencing / man made pollution.[/b]

I didn't say it was and you know that - so why make the irrelevant point?

You are right, I am wrong here sorry I was applying something some
one else said to you, my bad!
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
I didn't say it was and you know that - so why make the irrelevant point?

[b]If you want to show me frogs getting new features, lets discuss that.
The only case I know of is Cane toads in Australia where they are spreading they found that the average jump distance and size of toad is much larger on the fringes. This is because there is selection g ...[text shortened]... e: higher temperatures / the increased diseases they are experiencing / man made pollution.[/b]

"The only case I know of is Cane toads in Australia where they are spreading they found that the average jump distance and size of toad is much larger on the fringes. This is because there is selection going on as they spread out - the better jumpers spread faster. "

Yes, I agree that is the way natural selection works, that is what it does
it simply has those that are best able to make it, make it as long as
they can. If this was as far as you suggested natural selection actually
goes we would never disagree on how it plays its roll in evolution.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why would they be? Those things reside where, are they always
manifesting themselves in every host they find, or are some life
forms carriers and others die when they come into contact with
them?

If all life had defenses against those things that caused death like
diseases and parasites yet those things we call diseases and
parasites still lived in ...[text shortened]... at requires focus and
dedication which is not how the evolutionary process is described.
Kelly

you still don't understand.

i am not talking about evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#survival
How did diseases survive? Many diseases can't survive in hosts other than humans. Many others can only survive in humans and in short-lived arthropod vectors. The list includes typhus, measles, smallpox, polio, gonorrhea, syphilis. For these diseases to have survived the Flood, they must all have infected one or more of the eight people aboard the Ark.

Other animals aboard the ark must have suffered from multiple diseases, too, since there are other diseases specific to other animals, and the nonspecific diseases must have been somewhere.

Host-specific diseases which don't kill their host generally can't survive long, since the host's immune system eliminates them. (This doesn't apply to diseases such as HIV and malaria which can hide from the immune system.) For example, measles can't last for more than a few weeks in a community of less than 250,000 [Keeling & Grenfell, 1997] because it needs nonresistant hosts to infect. Since the human population aboard the ark was somewhat less than 250,000, measles and many other infectious diseases would have gone extinct during the Flood.

Some diseases that can affect a wide range of species would have found conditions on the Ark ideal for a plague. Avian viruses, for example, would have spread through the many birds on the ark. Other plagues would have affected the mammals and reptiles. Even these plague pathogens, though, would have died out after all their prospective hosts were either dead or resistant.