Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is a bit of shifting about on Son of El's posts but essentially, the point is natural selection is accepted as an evolutionary fact. But it can only change species within species (micro - evolution).
It is denied that it can change one species to another and the argument is that it isn't observed anywhere.
The answer is threefold. That micro -evolution, given enough time, could reasonably become macro and it is illogical to deny it. The evidence that it has actually occurred is in the fossil record which (contrary to what creationists claim) shown many transitional forms. The evidence is that, while there are long periods of stability, changes can happen relatively quickly - a matter of 100,000 years or so. That is long enough from our point of view and is one reason why, if macro-evolution is happening before our eyes, it isn't evident. It is only evidence as micro-evolution which (given 100,000 years) will produce your macro - changes.
Creationists may deny all of this but that puts them in the position of having no evidence to support their position and dismissing all the evidence there is - which supports evolution.
Abiogenesis is of course irrelevant to the argument. Evolution is about how life developed from the first compound that we'd call 'living'. It is irrelevant to evolution whether that came about naturally, through a divine hand or was done by visiting alien scientists.
While we have some indirect or circumstantial support for a natural origin and some plausible mechanisms for how it could occur, that is not definite proof, but it is quite irrelevant to whether the evidence for macroevolution from whatever caused the first cell is valid or not.
Now, back to you folks. (We also seem to have got right off Mickiel's 'Reserved evolution' theory).
More and more I believe evolution certainly existed, yet I see it as going the oppisite way than most. I think things are evolving less and less, not more and more; so evolution is more reserved and limited than it used to be. When evolution appeared, emergant evolution, it was at its strongest obviously during the times of Primordal man. And I think evolution in Primordal man is evidence of God changing early man many times. Not from animal to human, but human to human, in one form and shape to another.
As the Archaeologist has worked back he has not found traces of civilization ceasing altogether and " Ape Man" appearing, nor has he found skeletons or skeletal patterns which reveal changes from a chimp skeleton to a human skeleton; every skeleton that I have seen is complettely human, or more within the range of human than ape. Man is Man, and has been man no matter how far back we go.
Even with prehistoric animals, I see a reserved type of reverse evolution; from big to smaller, from exagerated to more simple. Dinosauer to dog, Teradacto to bird; it seems more like a reserved evolution to me; things being designed for " Future use" or future patterns to be settled on and the evolution decreased, not increased.
So I see an evolution that is more a resignation, becomming more submissive as time emerges. And not that it has even now totally disappeared, but it is now so resigned, it is minor at best. Evolution now has no resilience, no capacity to spring back to its primordal emergence- which was far more powerful.
So evolution is yeilding, I think residual; Reserved. I think human consciousness is yet still actively evolving and is not reserved.
The evolution of Darwin is only some illusion that some atheists and non-religious imposed on people and on science by the way of asserting and insisting, and it underwent an extensive propaganda.
Some points against the alleged evolution:
1- No one saw such evolution; it is only an assumption.
2- There is the new creation of new species of some animals in regions where such species are not common.
See here the true story of the creating of some white mice in a region where such white mice are not common: I Saw with My Own Eyes
As such God creates male and female of every species.
The evolution of Darwin is only some illusion that some atheists and non-religious imposed on people and on science by the way of asserting and insisting, and it underwent an extensive propaganda.
Some points against the alleged evolution:
1- No one saw such evolution; it is only an assumption.
2- There is the new creation of new species of some animals in regions where such species are not common.
See here the true story of the creating of some white mice in a region where such white mice are not common: I Saw with My Own Eyes
As such God creates male and female of every species.
Well Darwin couldnot see God in the equation of evolution; I think Wallace saw it before he died, or he saw that an outside force had to be involved in evolution. All evolution is; is the designing and re-designing of God, thats basically what evolution is. Many just do not factor God in their view of it.
There is a bit of shifting about on Son of El's posts but essentially, the point is natural selection is accepted as an evolutionary fact. But it can only change species within species (micro - evolution).
There is no shifting in my argument. I have been eluding to the same thing since my first post. The main point is that is impossible for single celled organisms (that you cannot even explain how they came into existence) could yield the diversity we see that works together synergistically. Just map out a ecosystem and you will this synergy I am talking about. Plants give out oxygen which in turn creates a barrier from the sun's harmful rays and oxygen for life on earth. Animals eat plants for energy and breathe CO2 for plants to absorb. Other animals prey on these herbivores for food. Other organisms break down dead organic matter (ie scavengers etc). And all this diversity coexisting with synergy came from 1 simple organism (according to you). You can ridicule me because I say God did it. But I find it hard to believe that even you think that these complex systems that we see on earth just happened by chance.
Quote:
It is denied that it can change one species to another and the argument is that it isn't observed anywhere.
Yes and nobody has produced ANYTHING sugesting this can even happen. Yet we still indoctrinate the youth on this nonsense.
Quote:
The answer is threefold. That micro -evolution, given enough time, could reasonably become macro and it is illogical to deny it. The evidence that it has actually occurred is in the fossil record which (contrary to what creationists claim) shown many transitional forms. The evidence is that, while there are long periods of stability, changes can happen relatively quickly - a matter of 100,000 years or so. That is long enough from our point of view and is one reason why, if macro-evolution is happening before our eyes, it isn't evident. It is only evidence as micro-evolution which (given 100,000 years) will produce your macro - changes.
No you cannot say the time god did it (remember no magic). It is not illogical deny or question. It is more illogical to come to that conclusion from the so-called evidence that we are provided. The fossil record does not say anything about evolution. Life forms appeared sponteanously throughout the so-called geological column (which only exists in a textbook). Do you even know how the date the rock. With fossils. Do you know how they date the fossil? With the rock. This geological column was invented before any radio metric dating was around, and is still the same as it was since its inception. So it was introduced without proof (as was evolution) but everyone just accepted it (without any investigation). Time does not create new species.
Quote:
Creationists may deny all of this but that puts them in the position of having no evidence to support their position and dismissing all the evidence there is - which supports evolution.
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest such (other than delusion).
Quote:
Abiogenesis is of course irrelevant to the argument. Evolution is about how life developed from the first compound that we'd call 'living'. It is irrelevant to evolution whether that came about naturally, through a divine hand or was done by visiting alien scientists.
No abiogenesis is relevant in this thread. The OP agreed. I already said if you cannot speak on how the so called progenitor of life on earth with evolution then you are barking up the wrong tree to argue about creation with evolution.
Quote:
While we have some indirect or circumstantial support for a natural origin and some plausible mechanisms for how it could occur, that is not definite proof, but it is quite irrelevant to whether the evidence for macroevolution from whatever caused the first cell is valid or not.
The only indirect or "circumstantial" support is in the brains of scientists who want this to be true. You don't believe me go back and check on the history of evolution. There are plenty of admissions from people that jumped aboard this train (with NO evidence) just to oppose the common view in the world (that God created it).
Quote:
Now, back to you folks. (We also seem to have got right off Mickiel's 'Reserved evolution' theory).
Actually this an argument I presented does support a reserve evolution. Like I said natural selection produces variants within NOT without. This variants have less genetic code than there predecessors. This is a well known (and documented) FACT within the science community. Evolution just yields so much tax dollars that they cannot let go. Why? Religious institutes cannot get grants from the government BUT scientific ones can. Why do you think supporters of evolution or so adamant to separate religion and evolution (even though there are no true facts to support and it has become a fanatical belief system)?
The evolution of Darwin is only some illusion that some atheists and non-religious imposed on people and on science by the way of asserting and insisting, and it underwent an extensive propaganda.
Some points against the alleged evolution:
1- No one saw such evolution; it is only an assumption.
2- There is the new creation of new species of some animals in regions where such species are not common.
See here the true story of the creating of some white mice in a region where such white mice are not common: I Saw with My Own Eyes
As such God creates male and female of every species.
Well Darwin couldnot see God in the equation of evolution; I think Wallace saw it before he died, or he saw that an outside force had to be involved in evolution. All evolution is; is the designing and re-designing of God, thats basically what evolution is. Many just do not factor God in their view of it.
So, basically, you are telling us that the only way you can deal with the facts is to "Lie for Jesus Christ". How sad for you, and for the world that has to tolerate such utter crap..
There is no shifting in my argument. I have been eluding to the same thing since my first post. The main point is that is impossible for single celled organisms (that you cannot even explain how they came into existence) could yield the diversity we see that works together synergistically. Just map out a ecosystem and you will this synergy I am talking about. Plants give out oxygen which in turn creates a barrier from the sun's harmful rays and oxygen for life on earth. Animals eat plants for energy and breathe CO2 for plants to absorb. Other animals prey on these herbivores for food. Other organisms break down dead organic matter (ie scavengers etc). And all this diversity coexisting with synergy came from 1 simple organism (according to you). You can ridicule me because I say God did it. But I find it hard to believe that even you think that these complex systems that we see on earth just happened by chance.
Yes and nobody has produced ANYTHING sugesting this can even happen. Yet we still indoctrinate the youth on this nonsense.
No you cannot say the time god did it (remember no magic). It is not illogical deny or question. It is more illogical to come to that conclusion from the so-called evidence that we are provided. The fossil record does not say anything about evolution. Life forms appeared sponteanously throughout the so-called geological column (which only exists in a textbook). Do you even know how the date the rock. With fossils. Do you know how they date the fossil? With the rock. This geological column was invented before any radio metric dating was around, and is still the same as it was since its inception. So it was introduced without proof (as was evolution) but everyone just accepted it (without any investigation). Time does not create new species.
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest such (other than delusion).
No abiogenesis is relevant in this thread. The OP agreed. I already said if you cannot speak on how the so called progenitor of life on earth with evolution then you are barking up the wrong tree to argue about creation with evolution.
The only indirect or "circumstantial" support is in the brains of scientists who want this to be true. You don't believe me go back and check on the history of evolution. There are plenty of admissions from people that jumped aboard this train (with NO evidence) just to oppose the common view in the world (that God created it).
Actually this an argument I presented does support a reserve evolution. Like I said natural selection produces variants within NOT without. This variants have less genetic code than there predecessors. This is a well known (and documented) FACT within the science community. Evolution just yields so much tax dollars that they cannot let go. Why? Religious institutes cannot get grants from the government BUT scientific ones can. Why do you think supporters of evolution or so adamant to separate religion and evolution (even though there are no true facts to support and it has become a fanatical belief system)?
I really don't know what to do with this. I already posted an answer as to how diverse life arose from a single cell and posted a link and you then passed over that and harped on where the cell came from. that is shifting the argument about.
Abiogenesis does form part of the argument but being unable to provide hard evidence for it does not mean that there is no hard evidence for evolution. All that is just dismissed with some unpleasant stuff about it all being just in their minds and they are only doing it for the money or to deny God. Even if all that were true it would not do a darn thing to discredit the evidence for evolution, which is clearly what you are trying to do.
Your repeating of the false claim that the rocks are dated by the fossils and the fossil by the rocks is an indication of how much you have to learn. Perhaps you are not to blame. i once thought the same - perhaps evolutionists are at fault in not explaining these things. Rocks are dated by other means than by the fossils. even before those methods were developed, it was evident that they had been laid down over time and probably a very long time and thus the fossils in them represented a progression and they were old.
Since dating methods how old is known rather than surmised. (See estimation of the time needed for the rocks to cool, radiometric dating and helioseismic verification).
With reserved evolution I believe God is holding it back until he again evolves all of humanity from flesh to spirit beings. Its being kept back and reservered for a future use, no longer employed as he did in early times. Evolution is being witheld and only let loose in the consciousness. He had it going full bloom in primordal man, its now reserved and kept for distant use. There may be some residual current examples but they are minor as compared to the past.
Physical evolution has no resolution or firmness; it does not have the resolve that current die hard evolutionist claim it has.
Its not the hero of scientific theory, it is risidual biology that is being called upon to explain the work of God in scientific terms. Its a permanent fixation in the halls of naturalist hope that is loosing resilence rapidly.
The main point is that is impossible for single celled organisms (that you cannot even explain how they came into existence) could yield the diversity we see that works together synergistically. Just map out a ecosystem and you will this synergy I am talking about. Plants give out oxygen which in turn creates a barrier from the sun's harmful rays and oxygen for life on earth. Animals eat plants for energy and breathe CO2 for plants to absorb. Other animals prey on these herbivores for food. Other organisms break down dead organic matter (ie scavengers etc). And all this diversity coexisting with synergy came from 1 simple organism (according to you). You can ridicule me because I say God did it. But I find it hard to believe that even you think that these complex systems that we see on earth just happened by chance.
Photosynthesis by cyanobacteria began to occur about 2 billion years before there were any animals or plants.
Finding something hard to believe doesn't mean it can't be explained through evidence.
Last edited by BigCityDreamer; 03-21-2012 at 03:55 PM..
I really don't know what to do with this. I already posted an answer as to how diverse life arose from a single cell and posted a link and you then passed over that and harped on where the cell came from. that is shifting the argument about.
Just go back to page 11 and see my first comments and follow them. I am not shifting anything. I proposed my argument and it stand unanswered. The best answer I've gotten was "We don't know but we'll find out". Which not answering my question. Scientist have been attempting to explain origins without God and cannot do so without a supernatural event. No link you have given has provided sufficient evidence against my argument. Natural selection leads to variation within NOT without. It has been well document, yet children are still indoctrinated with this nonsense.
Quote:
Abiogenesis does form part of the argument but being unable to provide hard evidence for it does not mean that there is no hard evidence for evolution. All that is just dismissed with some unpleasant stuff about it all being just in their minds and they are only doing it for the money or to deny God. Even if all that were true it would not do a darn thing to discredit the evidence for evolution, which is clearly what you are trying to do.
This also not a sufficient rebuttal. As it stands evolution cannot explain origins therefore it cannot be compared to creation which goes back to the beginning. There is absolutely NO evidence for evolution (I've already defined what evolution I'm talking about see page 11 and follow). I do not have to discredit the "evidence" evolution, because there is NONE. You haven't given me one piece of evidence that natural selection leads to diverse life from single celled organisms. The best article I've been given said "Natural selection did it" but that is not valid evidence. Especially when you consider what natural selection is. It selects what is already available to ensure an organisms survival in its environment. The finished product will have less genetic material to work with than it's predecessor. There is NO new information added. Mutations are not evidence that single celled organisms turned into humans over billions of years. Most mutation are neither harmful nor helpful. Of the remaining mutations the most are harmful.
Quote:
Your repeating of the false claim that the rocks are dated by the fossils and the fossil by the rocks is an indication of how much you have to learn. Perhaps you are not to blame. i once thought the same - perhaps evolutionists are at fault in not explaining these things. Rocks are dated by other means than by the fossils. even before those methods were developed, it was evident that they had been laid down over time and probably a very long time and thus the fossils in them represented a progression and they were old.
I'm not repeat a 'false claim'. I am telling you how the geological column came to be. You can Google the history of these concepts if you do not believe me. What I highlighted in bold is just an outright lie. If you go back and look at the history of these concepts you will see that the geological column was invented before and "tried and true method" came to be. These dates have never changed, even with the advent of these methods. I am not saying the methods ar einaccurate. I am saying that the dates have always been the same. How can you be sure that scientist are being objective, they are humans. Biases can exist everywhere. You don't believe me you should study the history of science.
Quote:
Since dating methods how old is known rather than surmised. (See estimation of the time needed for the rocks to cool, radiometric dating and helioseismic verification).
You don't get it. The dates were surmised and stayed the same even with the arrival of radiometric dating, and they still teach the geologic column in schools even though in only exists in textbooks. Textbooks still teach the fossils are dated by rock and rock by fossils to this day (it's called relative dating).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
