Evidence for creationism, Part 2.

[negZero]

God has spoken to me in my heart, though he's never told me the age of the Earth.

However, I'd like to see some of this "Evidence." So far I haven't seen any.

Can you ask God to do miracle that science can't explain away, sometime soon? Till then stay out of this thread that is asking for evidence and not beliefs.


Edit: Just noticed that YEC (Dom) just said there is no evidence for creationism

 

[magicfan101]

your definition of species is weird and is throwing me for a loop. this a serious questions to test your theory of speciation. if a organism can no longer mate with the general population because of mutations how can he pass on his new traits.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

your definition of species is weird and is throwing for a loop. this a serious questions to test your theory of speciation. if a organism can no longer mate with the general population because of mutations how can he pass on his new traits.

You aren't reading my posts at all, are you?

Do you know what a sub-group is?


Do I need to draw you a diagram?

organism can no longer mate with the general population

Can mate with the sub-population.

Do you understand the theory of evolution enough to debate it, or must I personally educate you?

I don't have the desire to do so if you aren't willing to look this stuff up yourself before posting.

It's like you're intentionally missing the point on purpose. It's borderline what Domination is doing. Are you trying to irritate people?

 

[Ajidica]

Umm... If the world didn't naturally die within a million years, humans will have destroyed it. This is common knowledge.

Try 5.5 billion years when it is estimated the sun will explode.
Or we all die in a million years when a sheep with a sword in its mouth starts talking to 6 eyed and 6 horned animals that break seals open causing the apocalypse as Babylon the great, mystery, the mother of the abominations of the earth rises out of the sea, clad in scarlet with a golden cup in hand on the back of the dragon.

Which seems more likely.

God has spoken to me in my heart, though he's never told me the age of the Earth.

'God', or some force yet unnamed has willed me to examine all of the evidence with equal weight. Hence, I came to believe in Evolution (abiet of a slightly thiestic version). Why would God want you to delude yourself?

However, I'd like to see some of this "Evidence." So far I haven't seen any.

This is reminding me of a Simpsons episode.
Lisa: Hey Mr. Flanders. Neat fish. They says Jesus on the side. How did you get them.
Flanders: Well, we took fish with similar patterns and bread the ones with patterns that were closer to what we wanted.
Lisa: So the fish evolved.
*Fish seen growing legs and climbing out of the tank*

 

[magicfan101]

Now, if group within a species

* No longer mates with other groups within a species
* Is physically incapable of doing so even if they happened upon one another
* Only reproduced with the sub-group

okay i see what a your saying. no this is not macro-evolution.
and this where we differ on constitutes enough change for macro-evolution.
i will explain the creationist view on evolution.
i believe that there were many different "kinds" or "genus" created by god. all the different species are derived from there particular kind based on the different alleles and mutations on alleles (like all blue eyed people people having mutation on a particular allele for eye color).
there is no observed macro-evolution even for the smallest organism. all changes are a result of a loss of information. which always point to a lack of "fitness".

 

[ParkCungHee]

Why are YECists all extra-biblicalists?

 

[negZero]

Why are YECists all extra-biblicalists?

God did it.

 

[magicfan101]

i think there needs to be clear cut definition on what counts for macro-evolution in this forum. your definition basically states all species are examples of examples of evolution as long as they do not breed. then by your line of reasoning all dogs and wolves are examples of macro-evolution.

 

[ParkCungHee]

God did it.

God did it, even if it's not in the bible.

 

[ParkCungHee]

then by your line of reasoning all dogs and wolves are examples of macro-evolution.

Dogs and wolves DO breed.

 

[magicfan101]

Dogs and wolves DO breed.

sorry certain species of dogs can no longer breed with wolves.

 

[negZero]

i think there needs to be clear cut definition on what counts for macro-evolution in this forum. your definition basically states all species are examples of examples of evolution as long as they do not breed. then by your line of reasoning all dogs and wolves are examples of macro-evolution.

Brain...Words...Fail...


Edit: magicfan is English second language for you?

God did it, even if it's not in the bible.

Especially if its not in the Bible

 

[sophie]

i think there needs to be clear cut definition on what counts for macro-evolution in this forum. your definition basically states all species are examples of examples of evolution as long as they do not breed. then by your line of reasoning all dogs and wolves are examples of macro-evolution.

This is because Macroevolution and Microevolution ARE EXACTLY THE SAME THING, as we have told you repeatedly over the course of both of these threads.

God has spoken to me in my heart, though he's never told me the age of the Earth.

Then how do you know the Earth is only 8-12 thousand years old?

However, I'd like to see some of this "Evidence." So far I haven't seen any.

If you want evidence, just look up in the night sky. Some of those stars you see above you are million upon millions of light years away, and the light your eyes interprets as stars started travelling from their origin millions upon millions of years ago, and the very fact that we can see these stars points to the age of the universe being AT LEAST greater than the 8-12 thousand years old that you are professing.

If you don't take that as evidence, you could always try the numerous, fairly accurate dating methods which modern man now has at his disposal.

Then there's always sediment layers.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

i think there needs to be clear cut definition on what counts for macro-evolution in this forum. your definition basically states all species are examples of examples of evolution as long as they do not breed. then by your line of reasoning all dogs and wolves are examples of macro-evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

In biology, a species is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology or ecological niche. Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into subspecies.

The commonly used names for plant and animal taxa sometimes correspond to species: for example, "lion," "walrus," and "Camphor tree" – each refers to a species. In other cases common names do not: for example, "deer" refers to a family of 34 species, including Eld's Deer, Red Deer and Elk (Wapiti). The last two species were once considered a single species, illustrating how species boundaries may change with increased scientific knowledge.

Each species is placed within a single genus. This is a hypothesis that the species is more closely related to other species within its genus than to species of other genera. All species are given a binomial name consisting of the generic name and specific name (or specific epithet). For example, Boa constrictor, which is commonly called by its bionomial name, and is one of five species of the Boa genus.

A usable definition of the word "species" and reliable methods of identifying particular species are essential for stating and testing biological theories and for measuring biodiversity. Traditionally, multiple examples of a proposed species must be studied for unifying characters before it can be regarded as a species. Extinct species known only from fossils are generally difficult to give precise taxonomic rankings to.

Because of the difficulties with both defining and tallying the total numbers of different species in the world, it is estimated that there are anywhere between 2 and 100 million different species.[1]

That's a suitable definition for me.

Blue = Hard scientific definition I can live with because we can all agree on it.
Black = More nebulous and open for debate.

But the fact is, if your group can't produce fertile offspring with another group, and there isn't a genetic malfunction involved (or cutting of gonads) that seems like a different species to me.


These are standard definitions.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

i believe that there were many different "kinds" or "genus" created by god.

No evidence, unspecified definition.

all the different species are derived from there particular kind based on the different alleles and mutations on alleles (like all blue eyed people people having mutation on a particular allele for eye color).

No, that's totally unscientific.

there is no observed macro-evolution even for the smallest organism. all changes are a result of a loss of information. which always point to a lack of "fitness".

Macro-evolution has been observed indirectly through the fossil record and through understanding genetics.

No one has ever seen the core of the earth, but we know it is there because we can observe other things about it, such as mass and magnetism and heat.


Your definitions are unscientific, your theories lack evidence, and your standards of proof are ridiculous.

 

[magicfan101]

This is because Macroevolution and Microevolution ARE EXACTLY THE SAME THING, as we have told you repeatedly over the course of both of these threads.

.

it seems were are at a crossroad. this definition of macro-evolution is a tautology and not in a good way either.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

it seems were are at a crossroad. this definition of macro-evolution is a tautology and not in a good way either.

You don't even know the meaning of the word tautology do you?

 

[sanabas]

if blind chance and random events does not guide evolution then what does.

If I put in the effort to give a decent answer to this, are you (or any of our other creationists) actually going to pay attention, to think about what I'm explaining? If so, I'll type out a long post. If not, I'm not wasting my time.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

If I put in the effort to give a decent answer to this, are you (or any of our other creationists) actually going to pay attention, to think about what I'm explaining? If so, I'll type out a long post. If not, I'm not wasting my time.

They are not, we've been doing this for two threads now, and they are still peddling the same fantasies.

 

[negZero]

it seems were are at a crossroad. this definition of macro-evolution is a tautology and not in a good way either.

tautology:
# (logic) a statement that is necessarily true; "the statement `he is brave or he is not brave' is a tautology"
# useless repetition; "to say that something is `adequate enough' is a tautology"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk