Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Challenge To Evolutionists & Creationists

GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 2:44:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
How did the Viceroy, White Admiral, and Red-Spotted Purple originate from a common ancestor?
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 4:46:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 2:44:47 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
How did the Viceroy, White Admiral, and Red-Spotted Purple originate from a common ancestor?

Why would this matter? Arent they still, even within creationist viewpoints, the same kind of butterfly?
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 2:59:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 4:46:50 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 2/21/2014 2:44:47 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
How did the Viceroy, White Admiral, and Red-Spotted Purple originate from a common ancestor?

Why would this matter? Arent they still, even within creationist viewpoints, the same kind of butterfly?

Yes, but it just seems a stretch to me to say that these 3 EXTREMELY DIFFERENT LOOKING butterflies came from one butterfly. I mean, that's saying that the original butterfly had the pluripotency to change into an amazing array of patterns and colors.

On the other hand, if butterflies can evolve so much, why couldn't other animals evolve as much?

Is there any observed example in nature of a species of animal changing so wildly?
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
SkepticalStardust
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 8:13:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 2:59:42 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/21/2014 4:46:50 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 2/21/2014 2:44:47 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
How did the Viceroy, White Admiral, and Red-Spotted Purple originate from a common ancestor?

Why would this matter? Arent they still, even within creationist viewpoints, the same kind of butterfly?

Yes, but it just seems a stretch to me to say that these 3 EXTREMELY DIFFERENT LOOKING butterflies came from one butterfly. I mean, that's saying that the original butterfly had the pluripotency to change into an amazing array of patterns and colors.

On the other hand, if butterflies can evolve so much, why couldn't other animals evolve as much?

Is there any observed example in nature of a species of animal changing so wildly?

I'm assuming you're looking for morphological changes. These are two that I can think of on the spot.

http://www.mapoflife.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Of course, if you want to see more rapid changes, then you need to look at organisms that reproduce faster. Virus' and bacteria change much faster, which is the reason a new flu shot comes out ever year. I can dig around and find more examples if you really want me to, but you could always look for yourself if you really want to know.

The reason some species seem to change more quickly than others is that some species have a greater selective pressure from their environment. "Fittest" doesn't mean "most fit"; it means "fits best in its environment". With greater selective pressure comes a higher rate of death in the less well-adapted members of a species. That means more reproduction for the better-adapted members of a species who were able to survive. This is how traits that help the species survive become part of the species. This is also why the environment looks tailor-made for the species that inhabit it; it's really the species being made to fit the environment. This happens to all species with selective pressure, but faster for a species under a stronger pressure. This continues until there's an equilibrium between the species and the environment, or until the species dies off. This starts again whenever the environment changes, whether that's a new species introduced to the environment, changes in temperature, less food, or anything else that might change a species' rate of survival.

Side note: Sexual selection also plays a role, but sexual selection generally takes a back seat to natural selection. Of course, artificial selection is the fasted way to change a species, which is how dogs, house cats, cattle, and almost all of the food we eat came to be what it is today.

Here's cattle and corn.
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." " Christopher Hitchens
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 10:12:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 2:59:42 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/21/2014 4:46:50 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 2/21/2014 2:44:47 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
How did the Viceroy, White Admiral, and Red-Spotted Purple originate from a common ancestor?

Why would this matter? Arent they still, even within creationist viewpoints, the same kind of butterfly?

Yes, but it just seems a stretch to me to say that these 3 EXTREMELY DIFFERENT LOOKING butterflies came from one butterfly. I mean, that's saying that the original butterfly had the pluripotency to change into an amazing array of patterns and colors.

On the other hand, if butterflies can evolve so much, why couldn't other animals evolve as much?

In terms of difference, they are no more different than polar bears, panda bears and black bears.

But the problem here isnt that they "Evolved so much", because they havent, anymore than a polar bear and a black bear have "Evolved so much" apart. Pigments arent the same as structures or organs. Theres a difference, even between humans.

Is there any observed example in nature of a species of animal changing so wildly?

Why is it that creationists keep asking this? You realize that we have 200, maybe 250 years of actual, decent observation record keeping of species, let alone multiple generations of species?
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 6:28:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 2:59:42 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Yes, but it just seems a stretch to me to say that these 3 EXTREMELY DIFFERENT LOOKING butterflies came from one butterfly. I mean, that's saying that the original butterfly had the pluripotency to change into an amazing array of patterns and colors.

It is almost like saying a great dane and a chiwawa came from one common dog ancestor.

On the other hand, if butterflies can evolve so much, why couldn't other animals evolve as much?

Harder would be naming a species that hasn't evolved as much or more. A diversity of colors, patterns, and an order of magnitude size difference is common in most orders. Compare say spiders and butterflies. As one example, there appears to be a much larger diversity between spiders than there does butterflies.
Romanii
Posts: 4,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 11:14:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 6:28:46 AM, Floid wrote:
At 2/22/2014 2:59:42 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Yes, but it just seems a stretch to me to say that these 3 EXTREMELY DIFFERENT LOOKING butterflies came from one butterfly. I mean, that's saying that the original butterfly had the pluripotency to change into an amazing array of patterns and colors.

It is almost like saying a great dane and a chiwawa came from one common dog ancestor.

Lol they do.



On the other hand, if butterflies can evolve so much, why couldn't other animals evolve as much?

Harder would be naming a species that hasn't evolved as much or more. A diversity of colors, patterns, and an order of magnitude size difference is common in most orders. Compare say spiders and butterflies. As one example, there appears to be a much larger diversity between spiders than there does butterflies.

They all evolved from a common, primitive, arthropod ancestor.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 11:57:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This thread was the product of an emotional outburst more than a genuine curiosity. Lol. =)
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
WaterTipper
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 9:40:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 2:59:42 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Yes, but it just seems a stretch to me to say that these 3 EXTREMELY DIFFERENT LOOKING butterflies came from one butterfly. I mean, that's saying that the original butterfly had the pluripotency to change into an amazing array of patterns and colors.
It's really not that hard to believe if you think about it :P
Even though they have different colors, their basic structures, their behaviors, and their organs are still extremely similar.
Consider dalmatians and chihuahuas. They look so different, but they're still the same species.

At 2/22/2014 2:59:42 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
On the other hand, if butterflies can evolve so much, why couldn't other animals evolve as much?
Depends on what you mean by "as much."
Do you mean evolving to look so different than its ancestor? Evolving to be able to survive more? Evolving in more stages?

At 2/22/2014 2:59:42 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Is there any observed example in nature of a species of animal changing so wildly?
Analogous to your butterfly example: different tulip colors?
Valiente
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 12:47:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 2:59:42 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/21/2014 4:46:50 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 2/21/2014 2:44:47 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
How did the Viceroy, White Admiral, and Red-Spotted Purple originate from a common ancestor?

Why would this matter? Arent they still, even within creationist viewpoints, the same kind of butterfly?

Yes, but it just seems a stretch to me to say that these 3 EXTREMELY DIFFERENT LOOKING butterflies came from one butterfly. I mean, that's saying that the original butterfly had the pluripotency to change into an amazing array of patterns and colors.

On the other hand, if butterflies can evolve so much, why couldn't other animals evolve as much?

Is there any observed example in nature of a species of animal changing so wildly?

Is it not also a stretch to say that these extremely diverse looking butterflies came from a single celled organism that evolved into a multi-cellular organism, which then evolved into vertebrates and so on; with no process to account for the expansion in the gene pool (gain of genetic information) that would have been required? No observable science confirms that view. Observable science does, however, confirm that all species of butterfly come from a common ancestor, but that common ancestor is a butterfly! We observed speciation within kinds. This variation is limited to the kind and can not transpeciate into a different kind. A butterfly will always stay a butterfly, a moth a moth, and bacteria will remain a type of bacteria. In Dr. Georgia Purdom's words, "According to Genesis 1, God made each type of creature "according to its kind." Within their DNA, God placed the potential for tremendous variety, including new species. But every species belongs to its original kind"cats are still cats, and dogs are dogs." Observational science confirms this.

It is true that butterflies vary within their kind a lot. Other animals do too. For example, most modern species of dogs come from just a handful from the 1600's. There is an extreme variety in dog species. There's also an extreme variety within bacteria. Or the cichlid species of fish is an example of rapid speciation.

Creationists believe speciation fits within the creation model better than the evolution model because the type of change does not increase genetic information, rapid speciation is consistent with the diversity of life we see today that has come to be since the Ark, and because we see changes, or variations only within kinds.
http://www.answersingenesis.org... (video)
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 1:18:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 2:44:47 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
How did the Viceroy, White Admiral, and Red-Spotted Purple originate from a common ancestor?

There's a good chance they didn't. My belief is that God created all basic forms of species and allowed them to adapt traits or "evolve" over time. Who's to say our "ape-like ancestors" weren't lesser physically evolved humans themselves? We don't know for sure if they had fur, after all. The reason why I don't accept why we didn't evolve from single cells is because I don't see why single cells themselves would need to evolve if they already had everything they needed.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
WaterTipper
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 1:29:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 1:18:58 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
There's a good chance they didn't.
And that "good chance" has zero evidence. :P

At 3/1/2014 1:18:58 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
My belief is that God created all basic forms of species and allowed them to adapt traits or "evolve" over time. Who's to say our "ape-like ancestors" weren't lesser physically evolved humans themselves? We don't know for sure if they had fur, after all.
Um, yes we do. All primates have fur. Humans are the exception.

At 3/1/2014 1:18:58 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
The reason why I don't accept why we didn't evolve from single cells is because I don't see why single cells themselves would need to evolve if they already had everything they needed.
Some cells clumped together and survived better than other cells. Multicellularity evolved.
Organisms don't evolve out of a conscious decision. It is dictated by the processes of reproduction and simple logic.
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 2:36:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 1:29:30 AM, WaterTipper wrote:
At 3/1/2014 1:18:58 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
There's a good chance they didn't.
And that "good chance" has zero evidence. :P

So you're saying I need to prove a negative?

At 3/1/2014 1:18:58 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
My belief is that God created all basic forms of species and allowed them to adapt traits or "evolve" over time. Who's to say our "ape-like ancestors" weren't lesser physically evolved humans themselves? We don't know for sure if they had fur, after all.
Um, yes we do. All primates have fur. Humans are the exception.

But how can we be sure if they were primates? From what I've seen and read, they seemed more intelligent than any primates I know of today.

At 3/1/2014 1:18:58 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
The reason why I don't accept why we didn't evolve from single cells is because I don't see why single cells themselves would need to evolve if they already had everything they needed.
Some cells clumped together and survived better than other cells. Multicellularity evolved.
Organisms don't evolve out of a conscious decision. It is dictated by the processes of reproduction and simple logic.

So you're saying they clumped together and survived and eventually evolved.
Interesting... What mechanism would cause that to happen, though? And they were still cells, however. Would they still need to evolve then? Natural selection, unless I'm mistaken, dictates that things adapt when they need to and pass on their traits to the next generation. The problem with trying to prove creation or evolution is that neither of them can be empirically observed and proven. Please answer.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
WaterTipper
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 2:58:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 2:36:19 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
So you're saying I need to prove a negative?
No; I'm saying that you need to provide evidence.

At 3/1/2014 2:36:19 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
But how can we be sure if they were primates? From what I've seen and read, they seemed more intelligent than any primates I know of today.
Source? Because for all I know, the Homo sapiens is a member of the order Primates.

At 3/1/2014 2:36:19 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
So you're saying they clumped together and survived and eventually evolved.
Interesting... What mechanism would cause that to happen, though?
Natural selection, of course.

At 3/1/2014 2:36:19 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
And they were still cells, however. Would they still need to evolve then?
Of course. All organisms are subject to evolution.

At 3/1/2014 2:36:19 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Natural selection, unless I'm mistaken, dictates that things adapt when they need to and pass on their traits to the next generation.
Yes, you are mistaken. Organisms do not adapt; populations do.
Also, they don't just "feel like" they "need" to adapt and just go ahead and do it, and then pass on those (non-heritable) traits. You seem to have confused Darwinian evolution with Lamarckian evolution, which has been trumped by the former.
I suggest you read up on a biology book.

At 3/1/2014 2:36:19 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
The problem with trying to prove creation or evolution is that neither of them can be empirically observed and proven. Please answer.
Evolution cannot be observed?
The influenza virus constantly mutates and evolves -- that's why we need to renew flu shots every once in a while.
The HIV virus that causes AIDS evolves too quickly inside the human body, impeding efforts for scientists to find a cure.
The Staphylococcus aureus bacteria evolved against methicillin, creating the deadlier MRSA.
Empirical observations are literally help up in your face, yet you refuse to acknowledge it. Please answer.
Valiente
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 10:27:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 2:36:19 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
The problem with trying to prove creation or evolution is that neither of them can be empirically observed and proven. Please answer.
Evolution cannot be observed?
The influenza virus constantly mutates and evolves -- that's why we need to renew flu shots every once in a while.
The HIV virus that causes AIDS evolves too quickly inside the human body, impeding efforts for scientists to find a cure.
The Staphylococcus aureus bacteria evolved against methicillin, creating the deadlier MRSA.
Empirical observations are literally help up in your face, yet you refuse to acknowledge it. Please answer.

What do you mean by evolution? Do you mean variations within a kind, or by evolution do you mean a rapid amount of genetic increasing processes causing one kind to change into a different kind of animal, i.e. a dinosaur to a bird.?

What does the influenza turn into? Must I answer for you? It varies within it's kind. There is no expansion in the gene pool (gain in genetic information).

What does HIV turn into? More cells of HIV. There is no changes of kind.

What did that bacteria turn into? More bacteria. Again, not the type of change required for molecules-to-man evolution.

Empirical observations literally refute your own view. Empirical observations confirm the biblical worldview that God placed a potential of great genetic variety within the created kinds, limiting them however, to vary only within their kinds. We have many species of dogs within the dog kind. Many species within the butterfly kind and so on. But these kinds will never turn into a totally different kind.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 10:39:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 10:27:21 AM, Valiente wrote:
At 3/1/2014 2:36:19 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
The problem with trying to prove creation or evolution is that neither of them can be empirically observed and proven. Please answer.
Evolution cannot be observed?
The influenza virus constantly mutates and evolves -- that's why we need to renew flu shots every once in a while.
The HIV virus that causes AIDS evolves too quickly inside the human body, impeding efforts for scientists to find a cure.
The Staphylococcus aureus bacteria evolved against methicillin, creating the deadlier MRSA.
Empirical observations are literally help up in your face, yet you refuse to acknowledge it. Please answer.

What do you mean by evolution? Do you mean variations within a kind, or by evolution do you mean a rapid amount of genetic increasing processes causing one kind to change into a different kind of animal, i.e. a dinosaur to a bird.?

It's all evolution, these short-term changes are what accumulate over time to deliver large macroscopic changes in species, new species, genuses and families and so on.

What does the influenza turn into? Must I answer for you? It varies within it's kind. There is no expansion in the gene pool (gain in genetic information).

I hardly think a brand new function (resistance to an anti reteroviral/antibiotic) doesn't classify as new information.

What does HIV turn into? More cells of HIV. There is no changes of kind.

Please define 'kind', because I don't find the word defined in any biology textbook. Evolution predicts gradual cumulative changes, so of course in the span of a short human lifetime, we are only going to see first-hand the lower end of the scale of these changes, even amongst the exceptionally rapidly reproducing species.

What did that bacteria turn into? More bacteria. Again, not the type of change required for molecules-to-man evolution.

Evolution doesn't concern itself with abiogenesis (chemistry to primitive life), it only concerns with the diversification of life once it already exists. Also man, or homo sapiens are but an insignificant portion of this process.

Empirical observations literally refute your own view. Empirical observations confirm the biblical worldview that God placed a potential of great genetic variety within the created kinds, limiting them however, to vary only within their kinds. We have many species of dogs within the dog kind. Many species within the butterfly kind and so on. But these kinds will never turn into a totally different kind.

Evolution doesn't predict any of those things you stated, it's core statement is all life is related to each other via common ancestry. It doesn't predict 'a change in kinds'. It does predict adaption, speciation, divergance in isolated populations, etc. It doesn't claim cats came form dogs for example, it does claim that they both share a common ancestor (a grandparent species, even) however.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
WaterTipper
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 12:03:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 10:27:21 AM, Valiente wrote:
What do you mean by evolution? Do you mean variations within a kind, or by evolution do you mean a rapid amount of genetic increasing processes causing one kind to change into a different kind of animal, i.e. a dinosaur to a bird.?
Both. Could you fundamentalists get over the "macro vs microevolution" BS? Both involve the same processes.

At 3/1/2014 10:27:21 AM, Valiente wrote:
What does the influenza turn into? Must I answer for you? It varies within it's kind. There is no expansion in the gene pool (gain in genetic information).
inb4 variation requires change in genetic mutation, aka mutation :P

At 3/1/2014 10:27:21 AM, Valiente wrote:
What does HIV turn into? More cells of HIV. There is no changes of kind.
What do you mean by "kind?"

At 3/1/2014 10:27:21 AM, Valiente wrote:
What did that bacteria turn into? More bacteria. Again, not the type of change required for molecules-to-man evolution.
Lots of small changes -> big changes.
I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here. Do you know ANYTHING about evolution at all?

At 3/1/2014 10:27:21 AM, Valiente wrote:
Empirical observations literally refute your own view. Empirical observations confirm the biblical worldview that God placed a potential of great genetic variety within the created kinds, limiting them however, to vary only within their kinds.
Sorry buddy, but refuting the other side's arguments (which you haven't, really; you continue to spew out your embarrassingly nonexistent knowledge of science) doesn't confirm your arguments.
And if you're talking about speciation, speciation has been observed quite a lot of times.

At 3/1/2014 10:27:21 AM, Valiente wrote:
We have many species of dogs within the dog kind. Many species within the butterfly kind and so on. But these kinds will never turn into a totally different kind.
Again, you use this word "kind," all the more illustrating your blatantly little knowledge on the matter.
Could you explain to me what you mean by the word "kind?" Also, would you like me to suggest some biology books for you? They should be available at your nearest library.
Valiente
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 11:31:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 10:39:14 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/1/2014 10:27:21 AM, Valiente wrote:
At 3/1/2014 2:36:19 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
The problem with trying to prove creation or evolution is that neither of them can be empirically observed and proven. Please answer.
Evolution cannot be observed?
The influenza virus constantly mutates and evolves -- that's why we need to renew flu shots every once in a while.
The HIV virus that causes AIDS evolves too quickly inside the human body, impeding efforts for scientists to find a cure.
The Staphylococcus aureus bacteria evolved against methicillin, creating the deadlier MRSA.
Empirical observations are literally help up in your face, yet you refuse to acknowledge it. Please answer.

What do you mean by evolution? Do you mean variations within a kind, or by evolution do you mean a rapid amount of genetic increasing processes causing one kind to change into a different kind of animal, i.e. a dinosaur to a bird.?

It's all evolution, these short-term changes are what accumulate over time to deliver large macroscopic changes in species, new species, genuses and families and so on.

If you define evolution as change over time, or short term changes, then everyone is an evolutionist. You seem to present evolution in two different ways: small, observable changes (speciation within a family, or kind) , and large, unobservable changes (molecules-to-man evolution). Our understanding in genetics makes it clear that mutations + time + chance do not equal evolution. All observed mutations demonstrate a loss of genetic information from the genetic code, or they are neutral.: : What does the influenza turn into? Must I answer for you? It varies within it's kind. There is no expansion in the gene pool (gain in genetic information).

I hardly think a brand new function (resistance to an anti reteroviral/antibiotic) doesn't classify as new information.

Actually, resistance to antibiotics is not a brand new function. Antibiotic resistance results in a loss of functional systems. Molecules-to-man evolution (a dinosaur progressively evolving into a bird) requires a gain of functional systems. Even though the bacteria changes to be able to survive against antibiotics, the change comes with a consequence. What happens is the antibiotic binds to a protein in the bacteria causing the protein to not function the way it should. Then the bacteria will have a mutation that prevents the antibiotic from binding to the changed protein. The bacteria will now be able to survive in the presence of the antibiotic, but the altered protein becomes less efficient in copying the DNA, making proteins, or making the cell wall for the bacteria, all of which are major functions in the reproduction of bacteria. This makes the bacteria less fit in an environment without antibiotics. Here is a technical paper on the matter http://www.creationresearch.org...: : What does HIV turn into? More cells of HIV. There is no changes of kind.

Please define 'kind', because I don't find the word defined in any biology textbook. Evolution predicts gradual cumulative changes, so of course in the span of a short human lifetime, we are only going to see first-hand the lower end of the scale of these changes, even amongst the exceptionally rapidly reproducing species.

Kind is usually at the level of family. If you're really interested, please read this article http://www.answersingenesis.org...: : What did that bacteria turn into? More bacteria. Again, not the type of change required for molecules-to-man evolution.

Evolution doesn't concern itself with abiogenesis (chemistry to primitive life), it only concerns with the diversification of life once it already exists. Also man, or homo sapiens are but an insignificant portion of this process.

If life didn't come from non-life, then your belief system cannot be true. This just begs the question. How can you have the evolution from the early vertebrates to todays mammals without abiogenesis? You can't.
Empirical observations literally refute your own view. Empirical observations confirm the biblical worldview that God placed a potential of great genetic variety within the created kinds, limiting them however, to vary only within their kinds. We have many species of dogs within the dog kind. Many species within the butterfly kind and so on. But these kinds will never turn into a totally different kind.

Evolution doesn't predict any of those things you stated, it's core statement is all life is related to each other via common ancestry. It doesn't predict 'a change in kinds'. It does predict adaption, speciation, divergance in isolated populations, etc. It doesn't claim cats came form dogs for example, it does claim that they both share a common ancestor (a grandparent species, even) however.

You have a misunderstanding of science. The word science comes from the classical Latin meaning "to know". The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines science as knowledge. There are two types of knowledge, or science. Observational science and historical science. Observational science deals with the present. We can experiment and test with this type of science, and this gives us the technology and medicine we have today. Historical science deals with the past, and mostly relies on the interpretations based on the interpreters starting point. We observe adaption and speciation within kinds today. This is observable science. However we don't observe the gradual change you're talking about. That is historical science. We weren't there to observe that happen, just like how we weren't there to watch God create the different kinds of animals. However, we have an eye witness testimony. God documents how he created the universe and the earth in his Word. That is my starting point, and that is how I interpret the evidence in the present about the past. And I find that the evidence confirms what God said. We all have the same evidence, the same fossils and stars and galaxies, but we interpret these things differently because we start with different presupposed beliefs that effect the conclusion we make. You and I share a common ancestor. But that common ancestor is a human. All species of dog share a common ancestor, but that common ancestor is a dog. The same for cats, chickens, reptiles, etc. Observable science confirms this. Can you point to one piece of observable science that doesn't?
Valiente
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 12:00:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 12:03:43 PM, WaterTipper wrote:
At 3/1/2014 10:27:21 AM, Valiente wrote:
What do you mean by evolution? Do you mean variations within a kind, or by evolution do you mean a rapid amount of genetic increasing processes causing one kind to change into a different kind of animal, i.e. a dinosaur to a bird.?
Both. Could you fundamentalists get over the "macro vs microevolution" BS? Both involve the same processes.

Your resort to name calling, acting as if a "fundamentalist" is a horrible thing, shows you have a lack of evidence. You are mistaken. Microevolution, which is really just variations within a kind (dog kind, cat kind, chicken kind, etc.) does not result in changes that cause a dinosaur to gradually change into a bird. Variations involve natural selection and mutation, however these small change result in a loss of information. Natural selection, by definition, is a selective process; not a creative process. Natural selection selects from already existing information. Mutations also cause a loss of information. Although sometimes it appears a new function is gained as the result of a mutation, the 'gain of function' comes at a cost. Bacteria's resistance to antibiotics causes the bacteria to be less fit in an environment that does not have antibiotics, thus there is a loss of information. This is consistent with the biblical worldview because we would expect this sort of downward spiral of genetic changes, since the entire creation has been decaying since the fall of man.
At 3/1/2014 10:27:21 AM, Valiente wrote:
What does the influenza turn into? Must I answer for you? It varies within it's kind. There is no expansion in the gene pool (gain in genetic information).
inb4 variation requires change in genetic mutation, aka mutation :P

As mentioned above, mutation always results in a loss of information, or remains neutral. There a few arguable cases where mutation might have caused a gain in information. These have all been disputed, but let's be honest, evolution on the big scale requires proof of literally trillions of these mutations that cause an increase in information.
At 3/1/2014 10:27:21 AM, Valiente wrote:
What does HIV turn into? More cells of HIV. There is no changes of kind.
What do you mean by "kind?"

Please consider this article. Kind is usually at the level of family. http://www.answersingenesis.org... : : At 3/1/2014 10:27:21 AM, Valiente wrote:
What did that bacteria turn into? More bacteria. Again, not the type of change required for molecules-to-man evolution.
Lots of small changes -> big changes.
I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here. Do you know ANYTHING about evolution at all?

May I turn the question around on you, and ask if you know what science is? There are two types of science, observable and historical. We observe small changes. These small changes are caused by information decreasing mutations and natural selection selecting from already existing information. We observe species varying within kinds, and that confirms the biblical worldview. Your supposed "big changes" fall under the category of historical science. We weren't there to observe these "big changes" and we don't observe it today. Because of your presupposed beliefs of evolution and millions of years, you interpret small changes as meaning these small changes must turn into big changes that cause an increase in genetic information. Therefore, you conclude that a dinosaur did, in fact, turn into a bird some time ago in the unobservable pass. However, my starting point of God's word causes me to interpret the evidence different. We have the same evidence. But we interpret the evidence differently because of our starting points.
At 3/1/2014 10:27:21 AM, Valiente wrote:
Empirical observations literally refute your own view. Empirical observations confirm the biblical worldview that God placed a potential of great genetic variety within the created kinds, limiting them however, to vary only within their kinds.
Sorry buddy, but refuting the other side's arguments (which you haven't, really; you continue to spew out your embarrassingly nonexistent knowledge of science) doesn't confirm your arguments.
And if you're talking about speciation, speciation has been observed quite a lot of times.

We agree on something! Speciation, as a matter of fact, has been observed! Does speciation confirm your beliefs, or mine? Can you give an example where observable speciation confirms your belief of molecules-to-man evolution over God creating kinds of animals with a tremendous amount of genetic potential that led to the diversity of life we see today?
At 3/1/2014 10:27:21 AM, Valiente wrote:
We have many species of dogs within the dog kind. Many species within the butterfly kind and so on. But these kinds will never turn into a totally different kind.
Again, you use this word "kind," all the more illustrating your blatantly little knowledge on the matter.
Could you explain to me what you mean by the word "kind?" Also, would you like me to suggest some biology books for you? They should be available at your nearest library.

Again, your misrepresentations of me show that you have little evidence for what you say. How do you know I have little knowledge on the matter? Do you know my background on the creation/evolution controversy? Do you know how much I have read or studied? You do not, and I don't know your background either. So I will not throw around blatantly false accusations about you. Please, do your research, and you would know what creation scientists meant by kind. I provided an article above.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 5:16:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If you define evolution as change over time, or short term changes, then everyone is an evolutionist.

Goood.

Understanding in genetics makes it clear that mutations + time + chance do not equal evolution.

That's partially true, the main thing you miss out however is natural selection, which favors certain traits and allows for multiple favorable traits to accumulate.

All observed mutations demonstrate a loss of genetic information from the genetic code, or they are neutral

Nylonase, lenski experiment. Both are shown to be due to a segment of their genomes being copied and modified (a net gain in information whichever way you attempt to string it)

.: : What does the influenza turn into? Must I answer for you? It varies within it's kind. There is no expansion in the gene pool (gain in genetic information).

I hardly think a brand new function (resistance to an anti reteroviral/antibiotic) doesn't classify as new information.

Actually, resistance to antibiotics is not a brand new function. Antibiotic resistance results in a loss of functional systems.

Non sequitir, it couldn't resist antibiotics before and can now. Even your non-sequitir is false as there are numerous examples of the copy-and-modify types of mutations resulting in such cases.

http://www.talkorigins.org...

Check the references within, where the net genetic info has been shown to increase.

Molecules-to-man evolution (a dinosaur progressively evolving into a bird) requires a gain of functional systems.

I don't agree with the presuppositions behind 'molecules-to-man evolution'. Furthermore, do yuo actually know if there is a gain of functional systems? Because our current understanding of the bird-line evolution is the mdoern bird mostly just 'repurposes' and changes existing parts. Scales are modified to become feathers, existing bones are shortened and reproportioned, etc etc. The same objection you apply to viral/bacterial evolution you could potentially apply to dinosaurs-to-birds (not that I completely agree with this).
.
Continued
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 5:34:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Even though the bacteria changes to be able to survive against antibiotics, the change comes with a consequence. What happens is the antibiotic binds to a protein in the bacteria causing the protein to not function the way it should. Then the bacteria will have a mutation that prevents the antibiotic from binding to the changed protein. The bacteria will now be able to survive in the presence of the antibiotic, but the altered protein becomes less efficient in copying the DNA, making proteins, or making the cell wall for the bacteria, all of which are major functions in the reproduction of bacteria.

And this is true for every single example of antibiotic resistance?

What does HIV turn into? More cells of HIV.

Um....
HIV aren't cells, they aren't even classified as 'life'. And we never predicted that they would change into another type of infection.

We do predict they originated from another type of infection however:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Please define 'kind', because I don't find the word defined in any biology textbook. Evolution predicts gradual cumulative changes, so of course in the span of a short human lifetime, we are only going to see first-hand the lower end of the scale of these changes, even amongst the exceptionally rapidly reproducing species.

Kind is usually at the level of family. If you're really interested, please read this article http://www.answersingenesis.org...: : What did that bacteria turn into? More bacteria. Again, not the type of change required for molecules-to-man evolution.

So 'kind' = 'family'. If you are going to talk in the science forum please use the biological terms as opposed to this ambiguous one. Again, we seldom predict species of a family to 'change' into a member of another 'family'. Any changes would certainly be classified as within that family. For example, in another 10,000 years we probably could ahve bred dogs tot he extend they they can no longer interbreed and also with some unique morphological changes. But they all shared a dog common ancestor and it's likely we'd still call them a part of the 'dog' family, despite having macroscopic changes are large between them as dogs and wolves, or perhaps even cats.

Evolution doesn't concern itself with abiogenesis (chemistry to primitive life), it only concerns with the diversification of life once it already exists. Also man, or homo sapiens are but an insignificant portion of this process.

If life didn't come from non-life, then your belief system cannot be true. This just begs the question. How can you have the evolution from the early vertebrates to todays mammals without abiogenesis? You can't.

It seems quite clear you do not understand the principle tenets of evolution. Please research this. Because evolution doesn't address the question of abiogenesis, not does it need to. I don't need to know where the ore my steel crowbar came from in order to use the crowbar. Apples and oranges.

Empirical observations literally refute your own view. Empirical observations confirm the biblical worldview that God placed a potential of great genetic variety within the created kinds, limiting them however, to vary only within their kinds. We have many species of dogs within the dog kind. Many species within the butterfly kind and so on. But these kinds will never turn into a totally different kind.

It's not something we would predict, either, especially on a human-lifetime scale.

Evolution doesn't predict any of those things you stated, it's core statement is all life is related to each other via common ancestry. It doesn't predict 'a change in kinds'. It does predict adaption, speciation, divergance in isolated populations, etc. It doesn't claim cats came form dogs for example, it does claim that they both share a common ancestor (a grandparent species, even) however.

You have a misunderstanding of science. The word science comes from the classical Latin meaning "to know".

1.) I don't give a crap about it's Latin root

2.) The Oxford dictionary definition:
"The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:"

At least use the ones we give you and not the one you just happen to read on answersingenesis.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines science as knowledge. There are two types of knowledge, or science. Observational science and historical science. Observational science deals with the present. We can experiment and test with this type of science, and this gives us the technology and medicine we have today. Historical science deals with the past, and mostly relies on the interpretations based on the interpreters starting point. We observe adaption and speciation within kinds today. This is observable science. However we don't observe the gradual change you're talking about. That is historical science. We weren't there to observe that happen, just like how we weren't there to watch God create the different kinds of animals. However, we have an eye witness testimony. God documents how he created the universe and the earth in his Word. That is my starting point, and that is how I interpret the evidence in the present about the past. And I find that the evidence confirms what God said. We all have the same evidence, the same fossils and stars and galaxies, but we interpret these things differently because we start with different presupposed beliefs that effect the conclusion we make. You and I share a common ancestor. But that common ancestor is a human. All species of dog share a common ancestor, but that common ancestor is a dog. The same for cats, chickens, reptiles, etc. Observable science confirms this. Can you point to one piece of observable science that doesn't?

All answered, can you please try thinking for yourself instead of blurging answeringenesis at me. Read about biology from material... written by biologists. Please. And at least try to understand evolution before criticising it.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 5:05:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 2:58:39 AM, WaterTipper wrote:
At 3/1/2014 2:36:19 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
So you're saying I need to prove a negative?
No; I'm saying that you need to provide evidence.

At 3/1/2014 2:36:19 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
But how can we be sure if they were primates? From what I've seen and read, they seemed more intelligent than any primates I know of today.
Source? Because for all I know, the Homo sapiens is a member of the order Primates.

Like I said, I'm skeptical, but these articles got me thinking that they were probably not just apes. The theory says we evolved from ape like ancestors, not apes themselves.
http://www.uncommondescent.com...
http://evolution.about.com...

And there's no solid evidence I know of that says they had the intelligence of a primate. the only evidence I've seen are drawings created from what archeologists could find.


At 3/1/2014 2:36:19 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
So you're saying they clumped together and survived and eventually evolved.
Interesting... What mechanism would cause that to happen, though?
Natural selection, of course.


I thought that natural selection dictated that groups change only when they needed to?

At 3/1/2014 2:36:19 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
And they were still cells, however. Would they still need to evolve then?
Of course. All organisms are subject to evolution.

But I haven't yet grasped why they would need to evolve if they had everything they needed. From my understanding, natural selection dictates that populations change only when they need to in order to survive.

At 3/1/2014 2:36:19 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Natural selection, unless I'm mistaken, dictates that things adapt when they need to and pass on their traits to the next generation.
Yes, you are mistaken. Organisms do not adapt; populations do.
Also, they don't just "feel like" they "need" to adapt and just go ahead and do it, and then pass on those (non-heritable) traits. You seem to have confused Darwinian evolution with Lamarckian evolution, which has been trumped by the former.
I suggest you read up on a biology book.

Darwin's Idea of evolution, however, is different than our idea today. He didn't even know fungi were their own kingdom and he admitted that his knowledge was limited. We now have much more knowledge today.

At 3/1/2014 2:36:19 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
The problem with trying to prove creation or evolution is that neither of them can be empirically observed and proven. Please answer.
Evolution cannot be observed?
The influenza virus constantly mutates and evolves -- that's why we need to renew flu shots every once in a while.
The HIV virus that causes AIDS evolves too quickly inside the human body, impeding efforts for scientists to find a cure.
The Staphylococcus aureus bacteria evolved against methicillin, creating the deadlier MRSA.
Empirical observations are literally help up in your face, yet you refuse to acknowledge it. Please answer.

I was talking about macroevolution. I don't think anyone's lived long enough to observe let's say, another human being evolve different traits.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
WaterTipper
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 6:12:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/2/2014 5:05:52 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Like I said, I'm skeptical, but these articles got me thinking that they were probably not just apes. The theory says we evolved from ape like ancestors, not apes themselves.
http://www.uncommondescent.com...
http://evolution.about.com...
...what? When did we start talking about apes all of a sudden?

At 3/2/2014 5:05:52 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
I thought that natural selection dictated that groups change only when they needed to?
You're using the word "need" extremely loosely here. Typically, the word expresses a wish for something.
Populations don't evolve when they "need" to. They evolve when they do.

At 3/2/2014 5:05:52 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
But I haven't yet grasped why they would need to evolve if they had everything they needed. From my understanding, natural selection dictates that populations change only when they need to in order to survive.
Why would organisms need to evolve if they had everything they needed? Humans need a lot of things. They need money, they need better unemployment rates, they need cleaner sources of energy. Why haven't humans evolved yet?
Because that's simply not how it works.
When there's a selective pressure in the population, the organisms that aren't as vulnerable to it due to pre-existing mutations survive. The ones that are more vulnerable die off. The organisms with the mutation then reproduce with each other, making that mutation more and more common in the population.
They don't just think "Oh hey, a shortage of food. I know, I need to evolve." That's not how it works.

At 3/2/2014 5:05:52 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Darwin's Idea of evolution, however, is different than our idea today. He didn't even know fungi were their own kingdom and he admitted that his knowledge was limited. We now have much more knowledge today.
However, that limited understanding of evolution in Darwin's time was still much more correct than Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's.
Populations don't adapt and pass on those traits. Individuals that have pre-existing mutations that help them against a selective pressure survive, and as more of those individuals reproduce among each other, that trait becomes more and more prevalent in the population until the population is considered to have adapted.

At 3/2/2014 5:05:52 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
I was talking about macroevolution. I don't think anyone's lived long enough to observe let's say, another human being evolve different traits.
Oh great, yet another person who babbles about this macro vs. microevolution BS.
WaterTipper
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 6:42:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/2/2014 12:00:27 AM, Valiente wrote:
Your resort to name calling, acting as if a "fundamentalist" is a horrible thing, shows you have a lack of evidence. You are mistaken.
Fundamentalists are usually religious literalists, which then implies that they are YECs, anti-science and anti-gay advocates, and right-wing conservatives.
It kind of is a horrible thing.

At 3/2/2014 12:00:27 AM, Valiente wrote:
Microevolution, which is really just variations within a kind (dog kind, cat kind, chicken kind, etc.) does not result in changes that cause a dinosaur to gradually change into a bird. Variations involve natural selection and mutation, however these small change result in a loss of information. Natural selection, by definition, is a selective process; not a creative process. Natural selection selects from already existing information. Mutations also cause a loss of information. Although sometimes it appears a new function is gained as the result of a mutation, the 'gain of function' comes at a cost. Bacteria's resistance to antibiotics causes the bacteria to be less fit in an environment that does not have antibiotics, thus there is a loss of information. This is consistent with the biblical worldview because we would expect this sort of downward spiral of genetic changes, since the entire creation has been decaying since the fall of man.
Oh great, this again.
This argument has so many problems, namely a conveniently vague definition of the word "information" and the subjective view of the word "loss," the two flaws that your argument desperately revolves around.
I feel like I'm reading off an Answers in Genesis article here. It's ludicrous.
EDIT: Oh hey, speak of the devil, an AiG link is provided right below.

At 3/2/2014 12:00:27 AM, Valiente wrote:
Please consider this article. Kind is usually at the level of family. http://www.answersingenesis.org...
Oh I'm sorry, I thought we were arguing in the context of science, not quotes from the Genesis. Pardon me.
Also, your own link seems to state that the word "kind" means the taxonomic rank of Subspecies, not Family.
Terrible troll, 0/10.

At 3/2/2014 12:00:27 AM, Valiente wrote:
May I turn the question around on you, and ask if you know what science is? There are two types of science, observable and historical. We observe small changes. These small changes are caused by information decreasing mutations and natural selection selecting from already existing information. We observe species varying within kinds, and that confirms the biblical worldview. Your supposed "big changes" fall under the category of historical science. We weren't there to observe these "big changes" and we don't observe it today. Because of your presupposed beliefs of evolution and millions of years, you interpret small changes as meaning these small changes must turn into big changes that cause an increase in genetic information. Therefore, you conclude that a dinosaur did, in fact, turn into a bird some time ago in the unobservable pass. However, my starting point of God's word causes me to interpret the evidence different. We have the same evidence. But we interpret the evidence differently because of our starting points.
Why is your "starting point" at God's word anyway? It should be at the evidence.
Behold: I have finally found why creationists argue like this. They start off with a subjective view, which automatically causes them to bend and cherry-pick evidence to fit their view. It's blatantly dishonest.

At 3/2/2014 12:00:27 AM, Valiente wrote:
Again, your misrepresentations of me show that you have little evidence for what you say. How do you know I have little knowledge on the matter? Do you know my background on the creation/evolution controversy? Do you know how much I have read or studied? You do not, and I don't know your background either. So I will not throw around blatantly false accusations about you. Please, do your research, and you would know what creation scientists meant by kind. I provided an article above.
Your previous comments -- all filled with subjective starting points, conveniently choosing your own definitions, the ignoring of evidence against your argument and the cherry-picking of evidence for, the presenting of classic creationist arguments despite their being refuted over and over, and the constant accusations of name-calling -- have provided me more than enough information regarding your level of knowledge on the matter.
And the Answers in Genesis link helped too in reaching that conclusion.
Valiente
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 8:56:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Fundamentalists
If you mean by fundamentalist that I interpret the historical narrative given in Gen. 1-11 as true history, then I am what you say.
are usually religious literalists,
Yes, I take the six days of creation as meaning six, literal days. I read the text naturally in all cases, and the way it was meant to be taken. Most of Psalms is poetic or allegorical, whereas Gen. 1-11 is historical narrative and should be read that way.
which then implies that they are YECs,
You are correct. I do believe in a recent creation. However, I do not call myself a young earth creationist. I am a biblical creationist because I stand on the authority of God's Word in every aspect from the very first verse. Old earth creationists argue from mans historical science.
anti-science
You are very misinformed on my position. I don't deny science, I embrace it! As a biblical creationist I would expect that the universe would be understandable, and operate in a uniform, logical fashion since it was created by a logical God who constantly upholds it. Why would you expect any of that? You have no rational foundation for the uniformity of nature which all science depends on. Why should you trust in science, given if your worldview were true, science would be impossible?
and anti-gay advocates,
I am not anti-gay in the sense that I personally do not like gays. I'd sit down and have lunch with anyone. Jesus' words in Matthew 19:4-6 says: "And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning "made them male and female," and said, "For this cause a man shall leave father and mother and shall cling to his wife, and the two of them shall be one flesh?" So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." If man defines marriage, why should your opinion be law over mine? Why shouldn't we be able to marry more than one person? In an evolutionary worldview the words right, wrong, and meaning have no meaning.
and right-wing conservatives. It kind of is a horrible thing.
By saying a right-wing conservative and every other title you threw around above "is a horrible thing" is inconsistent with your worldview. One of the problems you are going to find if you ever examine atheism from a rational perspective is that there is no foundation for making any moral claims whatsoever. You, as a non-Christian, cannot rationally claim anything is horrible because if you are right there can be no objective universal standard - only personal opinions.
At 3/2/2014 12:00:27 AM, Valiente wrote:
Microevolution, which is really just variations within a kind (dog kind, cat kind, chicken kind, etc.) does not result in changes that cause a dinosaur to gradually change into a bird. Variations involve natural selection and mutation, however these small change result in a loss of information. Natural selection, by definition, is a selective process; not a creative process. Natural selection selects from already existing information. Mutations also cause a loss of information. Although sometimes it appears a new function is gained as the result of a mutation, the 'gain of function' comes at a cost. Bacteria's resistance to antibiotics causes the bacteria to be less fit in an environment that does not have antibiotics, thus there is a loss of information. This is consistent with the biblical worldview because we would expect this sort of downward spiral of genetic changes, since the entire creation has been decaying since the fall of man.
Oh great, this again.
This argument has so many problems, namely a conveniently vague definition of the word "information" and the subjective view of the word "loss," the two flaws that your argument desperately revolves around.
I feel like I'm reading off an Answers in Genesis article here. It's ludicrous.
EDIT: Oh hey, speak of the devil, an AiG link is provided right below.
Unfortunately, you are too busy with emotional attacks to substantiate your claims with any evidence.
At 3/2/2014 12:00:27 AM, Valiente wrote:
Please consider this article. Kind is usually at the level of family. http://www.answersingenesis.org...
Oh I'm sorry, I thought we were arguing in the context of science, not quotes from the Genesis. Pardon me.
Again, how do you justify the uniformity of nature in your worldview? More emotional attacks, huh? Substantiate your claim that quoting a Ph.D. scientist is not arguing within the context of science. Then when you go on to say she isn't a real scientist, ridicule that university the gave her those well earned degrees.
Also, your own link seems to state that the word "kind" means the taxonomic rank of Subspecies, not Family.
No, read the article again.
Terrible troll, 0/10.
Adequate research, 0/10.

At 3/2/2014 12:00:27 AM, Valiente wrote:
May I turn the question around on you, and ask if you know what science is? There are two types of science, observable and historical. We observe small changes. These small changes are caused by information decreasing mutations and natural selection selecting from already existing information. We observe species varying within kinds, and that confirms the biblical worldview. Your supposed "big changes" fall under the category of historical science. We weren't there to observe these "big changes" and we don't observe it today. Because of your presupposed beliefs of evolution and millions of years, you interpret small changes as meaning these small changes must turn into big changes that cause an increase in genetic information. Therefore, you conclude that a dinosaur did, in fact, turn into a bird some time ago in the unobservable pass. However, my starting point of God's word causes me to interpret the evidence different. We have the same evidence. But we interpret the evidence differently because of our starting points.
Why is your "starting point" at God's word anyway? It should be at the evidence.
Because God's Word provides me with a foundation to do science. I embrace the same evidence you do; the issue is not the evidence, but rather how evidence should be interpreted.
Behold: I have finally found why creationists argue like this. They start off with a subjective view, which automatically causes them to bend and cherry-pick evidence to fit their view.
We don't cherry-pick evidence, we interpret it different then you.
It's blatantly dishonest.
I'm dishonest? So, I have violated what moral code? A moral code is inconsistent with your position. God has told us that lying is contrary to His nature (Num. 23:19), and that we are not to engage in it (Exod. 20:16). But you seem to dismiss the history recorded in the Bible, so I do not understand why (on your belief system) it would be wrong to lie. If humans are just evolved animals, why should we be concerned if we lie to or even kill one another? After all, a lion doesn't go to jail for killing an antelope.
WaterTipper
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 9:19:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/2/2014 8:56:25 PM, Valiente wrote:
which then implies that they are YECs,
You are correct. I do believe in a recent creation. However, I do not call myself a young earth creationist. I am a biblical creationist because I stand on the authority of God's Word in every aspect from the very first verse. Old earth creationists argue from mans historical science.
Which is pretty ridiculous, since there is so much evidence against a Young Earth creation.
And what is more ridiculous is that almost all arguments resort to Noah's Flood as a cop-out for refuting every single one of them.

At 3/2/2014 8:56:25 PM, Valiente wrote:
anti-science
Why would you expect any of that? You have no rational foundation for the uniformity of nature which all science depends on. Why should you trust in science, given if your worldview were true, science would be impossible?
And what has made you assume any of that about myself?

At 3/2/2014 8:56:25 PM, Valiente wrote:
and anti-gay advocates,
I am not anti-gay in the sense that I personally do not like gays. I'd sit down and have lunch with anyone. Jesus' words in Matthew 19:4-6 says: "And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning "made them male and female," and said, "For this cause a man shall leave father and mother and shall cling to his wife, and the two of them shall be one flesh?" So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." If man defines marriage, why should your opinion be law over mine? Why shouldn't we be able to marry more than one person? In an evolutionary worldview the words right, wrong, and meaning have no meaning.
Hey, just listing off the usual traits of fundamentalists here.
Nice to see a fundamentalist who's not anti-gay. In fact, you're the first one I've seen, and hopefully first of many.

At 3/2/2014 8:56:25 PM, Valiente wrote:
and right-wing conservatives. It kind of is a horrible thing.
By saying a right-wing conservative and every other title you threw around above "is a horrible thing" is inconsistent with your worldview. One of the problems you are going to find if you ever examine atheism from a rational perspective is that there is no foundation for making any moral claims whatsoever. You, as a non-Christian, cannot rationally claim anything is horrible because if you are right there can be no objective universal standard - only personal opinions.
Morality is such a subjective topic. Many cultures, religions, and societies have moral standards that often differ completely from each other. However, asserting that the morals of one culture/religion/society is correct implies ethnocentrism and xenophobia, and is not in the slightest the way to approach the problem.
Because of your own opinions (influenced by Christianity), you might not find fundamentalism horrible. I, however, do.

At 3/2/2014 8:56:25 PM, Valiente wrote:
Again, how do you justify the uniformity of nature in your worldview? More emotional attacks, huh? Substantiate your claim that quoting a Ph.D. scientist is not arguing within the context of science. Then when you go on to say she isn't a real scientist, ridicule that university the gave her those well earned degrees.
And the authors of that article have degrees in Molecular Genetics and Mechanical Engineering, respectively. All the more enforcing your love for the false authority fallacy.

Why is your "starting point" at God's word anyway? It should be at the evidence.
Because God's Word provides me with a foundation to do science. I embrace the same evidence you do; the issue is not the evidence, but rather how evidence should be interpreted.
We don't cherry-pick evidence, we interpret it different then you.
Let me rephrase myself: And those "interpretations" cherry-pick details of that evidence.

At 3/2/2014 8:56:25 PM, Valiente wrote:
I'm dishonest? So, I have violated what moral code? A moral code is inconsistent with your position.
"Dishonest: saying or likely to say things that are untrue."
So no, morality has no authority over veracity.

At 3/2/2014 8:56:25 PM, Valiente wrote:
God has told us that lying is contrary to His nature (Num. 23:19), and that we are not to engage in it (Exod. 20:16). But you seem to dismiss the history recorded in the Bible, so I do not understand why (on your belief system) it would be wrong to lie.
So you're admitting to lying then? :P
Anyway, morality isn't only dictated by religion; it is also heavily influenced by culture, nationality, backgrounds, and society.
I am American, and the consensus of morals of America states that lying is wrong. In fact, most people in the world would agree to that as well.

At 3/2/2014 8:56:25 PM, Valiente wrote:
If humans are just evolved animals, why should we be concerned if we lie to or even kill one another? After all, a lion doesn't go to jail for killing an antelope.
After all, a human doesn't go to jail for killing a cow for food.
I don't see your point here.
Valiente
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 10:12:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/2/2014 9:19:28 PM, WaterTipper wrote:
At 3/2/2014 8:56:25 PM, Valiente wrote:
which then implies that they are YECs,
You are correct. I do believe in a recent creation. However, I do not call myself a young earth creationist. I am a biblical creationist because I stand on the authority of God's Word in every aspect from the very first verse. Old earth creationists argue from mans historical science.
Which is pretty ridiculous, since there is so much evidence against a Young Earth creation.
And what is more ridiculous is that almost all arguments resort to Noah's Flood as a cop-out for refuting every single one of them.

At 3/2/2014 8:56:25 PM, Valiente wrote:
anti-science
Why would you expect any of that? You have no rational foundation for the uniformity of nature which all science depends on. Why should you trust in science, given if your worldview were true, science would be impossible?
And what has made you assume any of that about myself?

At 3/2/2014 8:56:25 PM, Valiente wrote:
and anti-gay advocates,
I am not anti-gay in the sense that I personally do not like gays. I'd sit down and have lunch with anyone. Jesus' words in Matthew 19:4-6 says: "And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning "made them male and female," and said, "For this cause a man shall leave father and mother and shall cling to his wife, and the two of them shall be one flesh?" So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." If man defines marriage, why should your opinion be law over mine? Why shouldn't we be able to marry more than one person? In an evolutionary worldview the words right, wrong, and meaning have no meaning.
Hey, just listing off the usual traits of fundamentalists here.
Nice to see a fundamentalist who's not anti-gay. In fact, you're the first one I've seen, and hopefully first of many.

At 3/2/2014 8:56:25 PM, Valiente wrote:
and right-wing conservatives. It kind of is a horrible thing.
By saying a right-wing conservative and every other title you threw around above "is a horrible thing" is inconsistent with your worldview. One of the problems you are going to find if you ever examine atheism from a rational perspective is that there is no foundation for making any moral claims whatsoever. You, as a non-Christian, cannot rationally claim anything is horrible because if you are right there can be no objective universal standard - only personal opinions.
Morality is such a subjective topic. Many cultures, religions, and societies have moral standards that often differ completely from each other. However, asserting that the morals of one culture/religion/society is correct implies ethnocentrism and xenophobia, and is not in the slightest the way to approach the problem.
Because of your own opinions (influenced by Christianity), you might not find fundamentalism horrible. I, however, do.

At 3/2/2014 8:56:25 PM, Valiente wrote:
Again, how do you justify the uniformity of nature in your worldview? More emotional attacks, huh? Substantiate your claim that quoting a Ph.D. scientist is not arguing within the context of science. Then when you go on to say she isn't a real scientist, ridicule that university the gave her those well earned degrees.
And the authors of that article have degrees in Molecular Genetics and Mechanical Engineering, respectively. All the more enforcing your love for the false authority fallacy.

Why is your "starting point" at God's word anyway? It should be at the evidence.
Because God's Word provides me with a foundation to do science. I embrace the same evidence you do; the issue is not the evidence, but rather how evidence should be interpreted.
We don't cherry-pick evidence, we interpret it different then you.
Let me rephrase myself: And those "interpretations" cherry-pick details of that evidence.

At 3/2/2014 8:56:25 PM, Valiente wrote:
I'm dishonest? So, I have violated what moral code? A moral code is inconsistent with your position.
"Dishonest: saying or likely to say things that are untrue."
So no, morality has no authority over veracity.

At 3/2/2014 8:56:25 PM, Valiente wrote:
God has told us that lying is contrary to His nature (Num. 23:19), and that we are not to engage in it (Exod. 20:16). But you seem to dismiss the history recorded in the Bible, so I do not understand why (on your belief system) it would be wrong to lie.
So you're admitting to lying then? :P
Anyway, morality isn't only dictated by religion; it is also heavily influenced by culture, nationality, backgrounds, and society.
I am American, and the consensus of morals of America states that lying is wrong. In fact, most people in the world would agree to that as well.

At 3/2/2014 8:56:25 PM, Valiente wrote:
If humans are just evolved animals, why should we be concerned if we lie to or even kill one another? After all, a lion doesn't go to jail for killing an antelope.
After all, a human doesn't go to jail for killing a cow for food.
I don't see your point here.

You seem to have two arguments in this reply. 1) There is so much evidence against a recent creation and 2) morality is relative and is decided by the general consensus of the culture.

Instead of arguing it out here, how about a debate over number 1? And possibly 2 later.
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 9:29:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/2/2014 6:12:34 PM, WaterTipper wrote:
At 3/2/2014 5:05:52 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Like I said, I'm skeptical, but these articles got me thinking that they were probably not just apes. The theory says we evolved from ape like ancestors, not apes themselves.
http://www.uncommondescent.com...
http://evolution.about.com...
...what? When did we start talking about apes all of a sudden?

Oh, it seemed like you held the (incorrect) belief that our ancestors were apes. I apologize...

At 3/2/2014 5:05:52 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
I thought that natural selection dictated that groups change only when they needed to?
You're using the word "need" extremely loosely here. Typically, the word expresses a wish for something.
Populations don't evolve when they "need" to. They evolve when they do.

But there has to be something to trigger that, such as natural selection. And natural selection is triggered by changes in the environment forcing them to adapt.

At 3/2/2014 5:05:52 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
But I haven't yet grasped why they would need to evolve if they had everything they needed. From my understanding, natural selection dictates that populations change only when they need to in order to survive.
Why would organisms need to evolve if they had everything they needed? Humans need a lot of things. They need money, they need better unemployment rates, they need cleaner sources of energy. Why haven't humans evolved yet?
Because that's simply not how it works.
When there's a selective pressure in the population, the organisms that aren't as vulnerable to it due to pre-existing mutations survive. The ones that are more vulnerable die off. The organisms with the mutation then reproduce with each other, making that mutation more and more common in the population.
They don't just think "Oh hey, a shortage of food. I know, I need to evolve." That's not how it works.

Of course they didn't think that way. And who says we've stopped evolving? As far as I know, we only evolved because of our physical environment affecting our physical needs. I don't think the analogy you used is realistic; we wouldn't evolve because we need more money or something like that, but we would evolve if our physical environment suddenly changed and we needed to adapt. (I.e, the temperature rising, or dropping and staying that way for an extended period of time.)
And selective pressure is also known as changes in the environment forcing populations to adapt, and the strong survive.

At 3/2/2014 5:05:52 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Darwin's Idea of evolution, however, is different than our idea today. He didn't even know fungi were their own kingdom and he admitted that his knowledge was limited. We now have much more knowledge today.
However, that limited understanding of evolution in Darwin's time was still much more correct than Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's.
Populations don't adapt and pass on those traits. Individuals that have pre-existing mutations that help them against a selective pressure survive, and as more of those individuals reproduce among each other, that trait becomes more and more prevalent in the population until the population is considered to have adapted.

At 3/2/2014 5:05:52 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
I was talking about macroevolution. I don't think anyone's lived long enough to observe let's say, another human being evolve different traits.
Oh great, yet another person who babbles about this macro vs. microevolution BS.

I know it may sound like BS at first, but I was trying to make the point that nobody's ever actually observed an animal evolve from one species to another. On the other hand, we've observed micro-organisms evolve.

You were saying how viruses evolved and that we had to keep up with them to make new vaccines; that's called evolution within a species, and that I believe in. I don't reject the entire theory; we just don't yet have all the knowledge of evolution.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 9:37:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 9:29:19 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 3/2/2014 6:12:34 PM, WaterTipper wrote:
At 3/2/2014 5:05:52 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Like I said, I'm skeptical, but these articles got me thinking that they were probably not just apes. The theory says we evolved from ape like ancestors, not apes themselves.
http://www.uncommondescent.com...
http://evolution.about.com...
...what? When did we start talking about apes all of a sudden?

Oh, it seemed like you held the (incorrect) belief that our ancestors were apes. I apologize...

At 3/2/2014 5:05:52 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
I thought that natural selection dictated that groups change only when they needed to?
You're using the word "need" extremely loosely here. Typically, the word expresses a wish for something.
Populations don't evolve when they "need" to. They evolve when they do.

But there has to be something to trigger that, such as natural selection. And natural selection is triggered by changes in the environment forcing them to adapt.

At 3/2/2014 5:05:52 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
But I haven't yet grasped why they would need to evolve if they had everything they needed. From my understanding, natural selection dictates that populations change only when they need to in order to survive.
Why would organisms need to evolve if they had everything they needed? Humans need a lot of things. They need money, they need better unemployment rates, they need cleaner sources of energy. Why haven't humans evolved yet?
Because that's simply not how it works.
When there's a selective pressure in the population, the organisms that aren't as vulnerable to it due to pre-existing mutations survive. The ones that are more vulnerable die off. The organisms with the mutation then reproduce with each other, making that mutation more and more common in the population.
They don't just think "Oh hey, a shortage of food. I know, I need to evolve." That's not how it works.

Of course they didn't think that way. And who says we've stopped evolving? As far as I know, we only evolved because of our physical environment affecting our physical needs. I don't think the analogy you used is realistic; we wouldn't evolve because we need more money or something like that, but we would evolve if our physical environment suddenly changed and we needed to adapt. (I.e, the temperature rising, or dropping and staying that way for an extended period of time.)
And selective pressure is also known as changes in the environment forcing populations to adapt, and the strong survive.

At 3/2/2014 5:05:52 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Darwin's Idea of evolution, however, is different than our idea today. He didn't even know fungi were their own kingdom and he admitted that his knowledge was limited. We now have much more knowledge today.
However, that limited understanding of evolution in Darwin's time was still much more correct than Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's.
Populations don't adapt and pass on those traits. Individuals that have pre-existing mutations that help them against a selective pressure survive, and as more of those individuals reproduce among each other, that trait becomes more and more prevalent in the population until the population is considered to have adapted.

At 3/2/2014 5:05:52 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
I was talking about macroevolution. I don't think anyone's lived long enough to observe let's say, another human being evolve different traits.
Oh great, yet another person who babbles about this macro vs. microevolution BS.

I know it may sound like BS at first, but I was trying to make the point that nobody's ever actually observed an animal evolve from one species to another. On the other hand, we've observed micro-organisms evolve.

You were saying how viruses evolved and that we had to keep up with them to make new vaccines; that's called evolution within a species, and that I believe in. I don't reject the entire theory; we just don't yet have all the knowledge of evolution.

In all actuality, we have indeed observed one species evolving into another on multiple occasions. The argument you are trying to invoke is that we have never seen one genus evolve into another genus.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 10:35:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 9:37:02 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 3/3/2014 9:29:19 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 3/2/2014 6:12:34 PM, WaterTipper wrote:
At 3/2/2014 5:05:52 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Like I said, I'm skeptical, but these articles got me thinking that they were probably not just apes. The theory says we evolved from ape like ancestors, not apes themselves.
http://www.uncommondescent.com...
http://evolution.about.com...
...what? When did we start talking about apes all of a sudden?

Oh, it seemed like you held the (incorrect) belief that our ancestors were apes. I apologize...

At 3/2/2014 5:05:52 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
I thought that natural selection dictated that groups change only when they needed to?
You're using the word "need" extremely loosely here. Typically, the word expresses a wish for something.
Populations don't evolve when they "need" to. They evolve when they do.

But there has to be something to trigger that, such as natural selection. And natural selection is triggered by changes in the environment forcing them to adapt.

At 3/2/2014 5:05:52 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
But I haven't yet grasped why they would need to evolve if they had everything they needed. From my understanding, natural selection dictates that populations change only when they need to in order to survive.
Why would organisms need to evolve if they had everything they needed? Humans need a lot of things. They need money, they need better unemployment rates, they need cleaner sources of energy. Why haven't humans evolved yet?
Because that's simply not how it works.
When there's a selective pressure in the population, the organisms that aren't as vulnerable to it due to pre-existing mutations survive. The ones that are more vulnerable die off. The organisms with the mutation then reproduce with each other, making that mutation more and more common in the population.
They don't just think "Oh hey, a shortage of food. I know, I need to evolve." That's not how it works.

Of course they didn't think that way. And who says we've stopped evolving? As far as I know, we only evolved because of our physical environment affecting our physical needs. I don't think the analogy you used is realistic; we wouldn't evolve because we need more money or something like that, but we would evolve if our physical environment suddenly changed and we needed to adapt. (I.e, the temperature rising, or dropping and staying that way for an extended period of time.)
And selective pressure is also known as changes in the environment forcing populations to adapt, and the strong survive.

At 3/2/2014 5:05:52 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Darwin's Idea of evolution, however, is different than our idea today. He didn't even know fungi were their own kingdom and he admitted that his knowledge was limited. We now have much more knowledge today.
However, that limited understanding of evolution in Darwin's time was still much more correct than Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's.
Populations don't adapt and pass on those traits. Individuals that have pre-existing mutations that help them against a selective pressure survive, and as more of those individuals reproduce among each other, that trait becomes more and more prevalent in the population until the population is considered to have adapted.

At 3/2/2014 5:05:52 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
I was talking about macroevolution. I don't think anyone's lived long enough to observe let's say, another human being evolve different traits.
Oh great, yet another person who babbles about this macro vs. microevolution BS.

I know it may sound like BS at first, but I was trying to make the point that nobody's ever actually observed an animal evolve from one species to another. On the other hand, we've observed micro-organisms evolve.

You were saying how viruses evolved and that we had to keep up with them to make new vaccines; that's called evolution within a species, and that I believe in. I don't reject the entire theory; we just don't yet have all the knowledge of evolution.

In all actuality, we have indeed observed one species evolving into another on multiple occasions. The argument you are trying to invoke is that we have never seen one genus evolve into another genus.

Really? I didn't know of that. Can you point me to some sources?
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson