Evolution or creation? (page 13)

hooberus

Yes, rem is a "rational folk" who doesn't believe in "myths"

So what does she believe . . . that her great-grandparents are FISH.

see the end of the "Carbon Dating" post under beliefs, doctines,and practices!

Light on facts and has to stoop to a silly straw-man argument. Of course that's not what I said at all, but if that's the way you debate then so be it. It's for the lurkers to decide who has the stronger argument.

rem

clash_city_rockers

D. Wilt,

Good to see you again

I believe that a christian can be misguided in his views on creation but as he grows in his doctrinal understanding he will abandon his view of evolution.

Evolution is a doctrine that comes to us in the same way that WT doctrine comes and that is through "new-light" as one theory that comes out and contradicts the previous or older doctrine of evolution. Listening to rem's drivel he too is yoked to the what he sees as the odeous notion of "faith" in evolution and this is by HIS own standard. Moreover, rem really does not have an idea of what biblical or Christian faith is or consists of. If rem objects, I would invite him to clear up his definition of faith and see if he does not live by the same standard in defending evolution in his apologetics. He charges that christians have this so called blind faith then he definds faith as some blind empty leap as his straw man to give his charges some credability. Unfortunatly he leaves himself up to the same cretique by his own standard and that by his own standard rem's trust in the empty doctrine of evolution to is just a silly leap off the same old Darwinian cliff.

Of course I would be so glad to debate him on this issue even in a public and formal format.

BTW rem have you heard the Greg Bahnsen vs. Gordon Stine debate?

LucidSky

Clash and others -- would any creationist deny that the formation of new species is evolution at work? Here you have one species which splits into two. A perfect example of minor evolutionary change. This says nothing about the scale of change that is possible or whether God is involved in the process, but it at least PROVES evolution has merit on a small scale.

Edited by - LucidSky on 25 October 2002 9:44:47

clash_city_rockers

Lucid,

Please give one example please reference the scientific journal artical that gives mention of your example.

jr

LucidSky

Hey Clash.

There have been many instances of observed speciation, as listed on talkorgins.org:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

The common example listed in my Biology book is wheat. Plants tend to create new species through polyploidism, so speciation this way is easier than in animals.

Another interesting phenomenon you may want to investigate is called a "ring species". This is a species that is distributed in such a way that members next to each other are capable of interbreeding, but the endpoints (usually in a geographic line or circle) are not due do accumulated genetic differences.

Another observation which suggests partial speciation might be the horse and donkey. These similar species probably had a common ancestor in the not-too-distant past which could be evidenced by interbreeding them. The resulting offspring is infertile and shows that these animals have now become two different species.

Minor evolution even within the human species can be observed by correlating skin/hair color to sun intensity (distance from the equator). Although ease of travel has somewhat skewed this now.

LucidSky

clash_city_rockers

Lucid,

If you can reference me the text book you are using in class that would be great. But the problem here is that most of the examples start with a natrualistic presuposition. Sorry but you can't claim nutrality on the starting points of scientific emperical analisys. There is no blank slate in which we start from. The Horse/Donky example demonstrates the blind leap into faith one has to make in demonstrating his evolution cause. He has to start with a man is in the center of the universe man is the mesure starting point, this puts the secular scientists into the uncomfertable position of trying to force scpeculation and a fualty scientific methodology in order to set forth his case. Thus one sees a similar species such as the horse and donky and assumes without proper cause that there must some evolution going on here. If evolution was a fact, which it isn't just a faulty and faiding theory which secular humanist frantically try to keep alive inorder to enslave and yoke the non-informed public into a quisi humaistic religious system, then you would have positive identification of what speices was the ansestor of the horse/donky. I suspect that a humanistic religiousoty is behind the pseudo science of evolution

cheers,

jr

LucidSky

Clash.

You can check any decent college-level biology book. I first found out reading a Creationist book which called this process "micro-evolution" (as opposed to "macro evolution").

I'm not sure of everything you said, but this stood out to me the most:

He has to start with a man is in the center of the universe man is the mesure starting point

What do you mean by this and why?

My point in providing the species examples was: if a species can change into another species, isn't that evolution?

hooberus

Virtually all creationist scientists accept micro-evolution as a verified phenomena. In fact I believe that it was a creationist named Blythe who first proposed it 24 years before Darwin (However my memory is fuzzy on this so I'll have to check.) Anyway the fact that micro-evolution has been observed doesn't prove macro-evolution. The two are in many ways opposite processes.

Micro-evolution starts with a large gene pool which divides by migration and selection ending up with change within basic types. (for example all of the 200 or so varieties of dogs coming from a basic wolf-type). this can even go so far as a new species technically being created. In this category we would include selective breeding as well as different kinds of wheat etc.

Macro-evolution starts with a small gene pool which expands by mutation and selection to change between basic kinds. (for example parcticles to people).

The real issue being debated is macro-evolution.

Edited by - hooberus on 29 October 2002 19:40:52

hooberus

rem said:

hooberus,

I think I already answered your question, but I'll be explicit since you seem to have some type of fascination with this issue.

Yes, I accept that a certain line of ancient fish-like creatures are ancestors to humans and certain other modern organisms, just as Evolutionary theory predicts.

Happy? Or do I need to explain it once more?

rem

Edited by - hooberus on 29 October 2002 20:2:15

Evolution or creation?

Share this