Science vs. Creationism

[carolinajazz]

This is just a segment of the debate. Interesting debate if you care to watch the rest. It's in 8 parts and this is from the middle. I like the first 6 or 7 min of this section. Then Ruse and Behe take over and it becomes less compelling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wrs3FDiyot4

...if this "creationist" insists that the Genesis "days" were 24 hrs long then he could never win this debate! On the other hand, if he points out that the Hebrew word for day "yohm" allows for much longer periods of time when any extraordinary event happens or occurs then he could clearly point out that the creative “days” of Genesis does not disagree with any current Scientific guess as to how old a certain dinosaur bone or any bone of any animal might be!

 

[LogGrad98]

https://www.gotquestions.org/Genesis-days.html

I always thought it just referred to the times God spent making everything, not necessarily consecutive. If you work one day a week, and talk about the third day at work, that is in the 3rd week, in relative time. I don't think it would be a stretch to think that eons passed between the "days" in which God was actively engaged in creation. And if he is truly a being outside of the normal constraints of time he could describe the creationary period however he needs to in order to convey to us the process in a way that allows him to teach us what he feels needs to be taught.

 

[One Brow]

If a species is adapting after changes to the environment then that ain't random mutation...that is stimulus--->response...and therefore not a Darwinian mechanism.

1) The adaptation is from the selection of differing mutations in different environments, which falls well under what you call "Darwinism".
2) Stimulus-response *is* an evolutionary mechanism.

~ Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., Biology

Selective examination and interpretation of the evidence. There are many instances of speciation and adaptation using novel genetic information.

Dr Robert W. Carter Ph.D., Marine Biology

There are a few species that can alter the rates of their mutations. The vast majority of mutations do not act within the llimitations set by Dr. Carter.

 

[One Brow]

...and I might add, NOT evolution! Adaptation does NOT change one specie into another specie or one "kind" to another "kind!"

Evolution also teaches that a kind only gives birth to that kind. Fish only give birth to fish. Even though some of these populations of fish developed legs, they are fish. Legged fish only give birth to legged fish, even though some populations of these legged fish use their legs to adapt to living out of teh water for part of their life cycle, and called amphibians. Amphibians are still legged fish. Amphibians only givve birth to amphibians, even though some populaitons of amphibians move their breeding cycle onto the land, and are now called reptiles. Reptiles are still amphibians. Reptiles only give birth to retiles, even though some populations of reptiles develop hair and thermal control, a subset we call mammals. Mammals are still reptiles. Mammals only give birth to mammals, even though some mammals developed very large brains and u-right walking, which subset we call humans. Humans are still mammals, therefore reptiles, therefore amphibians, therefore legged fish, therefore fish. At each step, each only gives birth to its own kind.

 

[One Brow]

...then he could clearly point out that the creative “days” of Genesis does not disagree with any current Scientific guess as to how old a certain dinosaur bone or any bone of any animal might be!

However, the order of Genesis does disagree with the order we know various things appeared in.

 

[MVP]

...and I might add, NOT evolution! Adaptation does NOT change one specie into another specie or one "kind" to another "kind!"

It does result in new species. Again, I am asking what is London underground mosquito and how did it happen? Was it just "created" recently by your "intelligent designer" or it did evolve as separate species due to unique conditions in underground?
You should as well read about Lenski's long term experimental evolution project. Much more interesting then biblical myths about 900 year old people

https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

 

[MVP]

Which is why, when I outlined the two choices, I limitied them to fish and amphibians. Amphibians diverged in the Devonian era. Which of the two outlined secnarios made sense to you?

They both have possibilities.
To me it makes more sense that it was primitive fish which developed this ability which was eventually passed on and survived in some amphibians. Other species developed similar but not the same estivation mechanisms as well. For example since reptiles are so much better adopted to survive without water their estivation does not require water preserving cocoon.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnQKnMZbQnk

 

[♪alt13]

 

[LogGrad98]

That would seriously be the coolest Jesus ever. Way cooler than the Jesus with the gauged ears and huge Jesus tattoo across his back that mows our lawn. Seriously.

 

[babe]

Your level of argument is definitely higher than the rest of us, so I'm going to deflate it.

My favorite demonstration of intelligence in the animal kingdom is when the black widow eats her mate afterwards...

men everywhere have the intelligence to know this is not "progress" or "evolution", but merely an evil afterthought inspired by Satan. Few scientists, however, have burned the midnight oil cogitating or experimenting to prove the non-existence of Satan and/or the Evil One's destructive contributions to the world we know.

As you know, I consider this line of thought demonstrated sufficiently in the acts of politicians.

/

. . . . . .

so, what has become of your husband???

 

[carolinajazz]

sure.
but if one organism can survive as it is; then where is the need for further evolution?

Environmental changes did not kill those that have survived, so these animal species are the end-products in their production lane.
It cannot be both ways.
Either you face extinction and you evolve.
or you survive already, so you don't seek new solutions, easier life, whatever that is which forms the underlying "motive" for evolution.

...excellent point!.....and one evolutionist have no sane or reasonable answer for.....especially One Brow and his cockamamie suedo-intellectural gobblygook responses that evade the issues we raise by just saying "given enough time ANYTHING can happen!"

 

[MVP]

especially One Brow and his cockamamie suedo-intellectural gobblygook responses that evade the issues we raise

So far One Brow answered all your weak questions perfectly.
On the other hand I am still awaiting creationist explanation for London underground mosquito.

 

[carolinajazz]

So far One Brow answered all your weak questions perfectly.
On the other hand I am still awaiting creationist explanation for London underground mosquito.

...we've answered that question more times than a Jazz missed jumpshot! IT'S STILL A MOSQUITO! It doesn't "evolve" into a bird, a plane or even a tall building! Insects remain insects, reptiles remain reptiles, mammals remain mammals! There is a distinct and definite limit as to the varieties within a Genesis "kind" that does not allow for the evolutionary thinking or process! This variety or adaptability is indeed, amazing! But it never goes beyond those boundaries! Cats remain cats, dogs remain dogs, monkeys remain monkeys, etc. etc. etc.! So, enough of this foolishness! By the way, who do you think is going to win the regionals?

 

[One Brow]

...excellent point!.....and one evolutionist have no sane or reasonable answer for.....especially One Brow and his cockamamie suedo-intellectural gobblygook responses that evade the issues we raise by just saying "given enough time ANYTHING can happen!"

Actually, I answered that question in post #478, and so far you have been silent on the response. However, I can understand your impetus to cheer each other on; you really don't have much else to go on.

 

[One Brow]

...we've answered that question more times than a Jazz missed jumpshot! IT'S STILL A MOSQUITO! It doesn't "evolve" into a bird, a plane or even a tall building! Insects remain insects, reptiles remain reptiles, mammals remain mammals!

This is what evolutionary theory says. The offspring of insects are insects, the offspring of mammals are mammals, and the offspring of reptiles are reptiles, while some of which reptiles are mammals. YOu keep repeating this as if it is counter to evolutionary theory. It is not.

There is a distinct and definite limit as to the varieties within a Genesis "kind" that does not allow for the evolutionary thinking or process!

Not only is there no scientific reason to believe this, there is also no Biblical reason. There is no Bible verse that limits how varied a kind can get. It says according to their kinds, but never states the limits of a kind.

This variety or adaptability is indeed, amazing! But it never goes beyond those boundaries! Cats remain cats, dogs remain dogs, monkeys remain monkeys, etc. etc. etc.!

Again, this is standard evolutionary theory.

 

[MVP]

...we've answered that question more times than a Jazz missed jumpshot! IT'S STILL A MOSQUITO!

Ok so you agree that we have a proof of new species evolving due to unique environment. The one which was never know before and it is safe to assume would have not come to existence without environmental change. The one which evolution took only hundred years + to happen. Now open your mind and think millions of years and much more significant changes to environment like oxygen levels changing about 5% one way or the other. Temperature raising or dropping 20-30 degrees. Think about it. THINK. THINK. We evolved best brains in the animal kingdom for that, use it my friend!

 

[Zulu]

...we've answered that question more times than a Jazz missed jumpshot! IT'S STILL A MOSQUITO! It doesn't "evolve" into a bird, a plane or even a tall building! Insects remain insects, reptiles remain reptiles, mammals remain mammals! There is a distinct and definite limit as to the varieties within a Genesis "kind" that does not allow for the evolutionary thinking or process! This variety or adaptability is indeed, amazing! But it never goes beyond those boundaries! Cats remain cats, dogs remain dogs, monkeys remain monkeys, etc. etc. etc.! So, enough of this foolishness! By the way, who do you think is going to win the regionals?

What about this guy....

 

[PearlWatson]

men everywhere have the intelligence to know this is not "progress" or "evolution", but merely an evil afterthought inspired by Satan. Few scientists, however, have burned the midnight oil cogitating or experimenting to prove the non-existence of Satan and/or the Evil One's destructive contributions to the world we know.

As you know, I consider this line of thought demonstrated sufficiently in the acts of politicians.

/

. . . . . .

so, what has become of your husband???

haha...she only eats him because he is smaller than her...and she can't always recognize him.

This dude makes a good point about the familiarity of the spider ritual...both in the behavior of females and the behavior of males.

This phenomenon (mate eating!) is common for most spiders not just widows but it doesn't happen every time. Even though it’s every male spider’s problem; the black widows get more press so most people think it’s just the widow’s thing.
Female spiders don't always recognize their own species and all spiders are cannibalistic, so the male spider (usually smaller than the female) is at a great disadvantage. Males engage in a lengthy and subtle courtship ritual that lulls the female into the right mood. Every move the male makes has to be just right or it's all over for him. Sometimes it's all over for him no matter what he does - these would be the near-starving females that are more worried about food than reproduction. After mating (which may take some time) the female gradually returns to her normal state of mind – which includes eating anything smaller than her, including mates. If the male is foolish enough to hang out in the web too long, it becomes lunch. Most males skip out immediately and look for another female (sound familiar?)

 

[PearlWatson]

...we've answered that question more times than a Jazz missed jumpshot! IT'S STILL A MOSQUITO! It doesn't "evolve" into a bird, a plane or even a tall building! Insects remain insects, reptiles remain reptiles, mammals remain mammals! There is a distinct and definite limit as to the varieties within a Genesis "kind" that does not allow for the evolutionary thinking or process! This variety or adaptability is indeed, amazing! But it never goes beyond those boundaries! Cats remain cats, dogs remain dogs, monkeys remain monkeys, etc. etc. etc.! So, enough of this foolishness! By the way, who do you think is going to win the regionals?

The problem is they want to apply the special theory to the general theory.
They want you to believe the world is flat because a mesa is.

 

[PearlWatson]

Ok so you agree that we have a proof of new species evolving due to unique environment. The one which was never know before and it is safe to assume would have not come to existence without environmental change. The one which evolution took only hundred years + to happen. Now open your mind and think millions of years and much more significant changes to environment like oxygen levels changing about 5% one way or the other. Temperature raising or dropping 20-30 degrees. Think about it. THINK. THINK. We evolved best brains in the animal kingdom for that, use it my friend!

The differences represent loss mutations.
The underground misquito is now intolerant to cold.
The undergound misquito doesn't hybernate any longer because it is always warm.

No new genetic information.
In order to go from molecule to man you have to gain genetic information not lose it.