[_ Old Earth _] Evidence

[legamus]

an elephant is a mammal, a crocodile is a reptile but that's besides the point. the point is that they're completely dissimilar. if you had one of each fossilized you wouldn't conclude they're related.

 

[saved4life]

an elephant is a mammal, a crocodile is a reptile but that's besides the point. the point is that they're completely dissimilar. if you had one of each fossilized you wouldn't conclude they're related.

Of course not. I'm just saying Evolution doesn't just do little, minor, fine-tuning of a species. It does major stuff!

 

[Bryan]

I gave you several examples. Are you willing to back your statement up?

No, you didn't. What you talked about was mutated fruit fies and flour beetles. The fly was still a fly, the beetle was still a beetle.

 

[Featherbop]

Bryan says it perfectly.

They are still the same creatures, albight some small changes, and that doesn't mean the creatures change over millions of years that don't exist.

When I made this topic, it was to see if anyone would offer proof of evolution. I know it can't be done. Desperation was happening here, and I wasn't desperate to try and prove what is true but can't currently be proven.

 

[saved4life]

Bryan says it perfectly.

They are still the same creatures, albight some small changes, and that doesn't mean the creatures change over millions of years that don't exist.

When I made this topic, it was to see if anyone would offer proof of evolution. I know it can't be done. Desperation was happening here, and I wasn't desperate to try and prove what is true but can't currently be proven.

Dolphins and whales evolving from legged land animals into pretty much completey different species are not "small changes."

Apes turning into men would be small changes, too, if you ask me. :

Earth’s largest animals are sometimes born with a leg or two, a startling genetic reminder of the time, 50 million years ago, when their ancestors walked on dry land.

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm ... 101.4.html

When Christians see articles like this that mention animals evolving over 50 million years (or 350 million years), do they think that the scientists are just crazy and that the Earth is just a few thousand years old?

If you take an animal biology course in college, do you just take an "F" on principle and write essays saying that all the scientists are crazy or under the influence of the devil?

 

[victorhadin]

I gave you several examples. Are you willing to back your statement up?

No, you didn't. What you talked about was mutated fruit fies and flour beetles. The fly was still a fly, the beetle was still a beetle.

They remain sound examples. What do you think speciation is exactly? It is the evoluion of two or more population groups from a single species which cannot successfully reproduce with each other. This allows for divergence between those populations and is the necessary step for the steady evolution into more noticeably different creatures.

They are still examples of speciation, and defined as such by every biologist. Stop moving back the goalposts.

 

[4runner]

Does this mean if i start sprouting a tail i should'nt be alarmed? I thought i saw a few feathers the other day growing under my arms so i plucked them out. Hmmmm wonder what i'm trying to evolve into? Darn i hope i'll be cute!

 

[saved4life]

Does this mean if i start sprouting a tail i should'nt be alarmed?

Nah, it's probably just your vestigial tail coming back. :

 

[Vic C.]

Or it could be something he ate!

 

[saved4life]

Or it could be something he ate!

Gross! :-?

Good one. 8)

 

[4runner]

Actually i've made an appointment with the vet to have my tail docked. Guess i'll have to keep plucking the feathers though.

 

[Vic C.]

Hold out your arm and use them as feather dusters. : : :

 

[4runner]

I was think'in more along these lines... :angel:

 

[Bryan]

Stop moving back the goalposts.

You're the one who's moving the goal posts. You claim to have evidence that supports evolution, and yet all you present is speculation using adaptations within the same animals as an example. It's like trying to prove your boots are brown by showing me a picture of your hat.

 

[victorhadin]

If you believe that observed speciation is not evidence for evolution, you are somewhat mislead.
Further evidence, as I have repeatedy pointed out, includes the fossil record and transitional fossils, observation of isoated ecosystems and how diverged populations have created visibly different creatures (extending on from observed, limited, speciation), observation of natural selection as applicable to insects, vermin and bacteria and viral diseases (along with one or two selected mutations in our own species, as I have pointed out) and the genetic record which has been used to show the common similarities of many species previously predicted by biologists using evolutionary models.

We may not have seen a fish population become an amphibian population, but the amount of circumstantial/ direct evidence we have so far is enormous.

When models predicted by the theory fit facts unearthed later on and when more and more evidence being unearthed fits the evolutionary model, you cannot simply call it idle speculation.

... Unless, of course, you believe in a 'cosmic joker' god who placed all those fossils there and toyed with genetic codes for a bit of a lark?

 

[legamus]

Stop moving back the goalposts.

You're the one who's moving the goal posts. You claim to have evidence that supports evolution, and yet all you present is speculation using adaptations within the same animals as an example. It's like trying to prove your boots are brown by showing me a picture of your hat.

bryan, i think you have a pretty severe misconception of what evolution actually is. if speciation with a population of beetles occures, that is macroevolution even though they're both beetles still. and adaptations within the same animals IS evolution; that is why i fail to understand the big theological problem people have. apes -> human is a theological problem because the bible is pretty clear that God created people in His image. but again, i'm pretty sure that that is erroneous evolutionary theory. show me where in the bible God says about His creation that it shall not change. because that is all evolution is. to me the way many christians talk about evolution is honestly superstitious to my ears.

 

[Rebecka]

Hi everyone, may i say something?...As one poster said, we need only look to history and see how things have changed, but it isn't that God is changing, but is letting us grow more and more into his universe.


God said he changes not, he said he stretches out the heavens (space) as a curtain, he said he made us from the earth, (matter) it is obvious he did, but to be a monkey's relative is not possible. Made in his image and AFTER his likeness. Darwin taught we came from monkeys after he met the Negroes, not the Galapagos birds (can't spell that). Read "The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephen Gould

God revealed to me this; Even as there is light and dark, people are light and dark skinned. Brown earth;brown eyes. Bue sky, blue eyes. Green trees, green eyes. Yellow sun,yellow hair, amber eyes. Brown earth, brown hair, Complexions on humans vary from morning colored skies (light and fair) to afternoon (olive) to midnight.(black) We are from the earth and look just like it, and inbreathed with the spirit of God who is life.

We all look like the earth we came from and where we shall return, but because of Christ, we can live forever after we leave these clay houses we live in if we believe in Him.

I know man can't swim unless taught and the apes walk on the side of their foot and man walks on his toes.

Also man can cry tears and apes can't. if anyone has ever seen a monkey cry, tell me and prove it.

 

[victorhadin]

Well I dunno if they cry, but they do have functioning tear ducts, certainly.

 

[Bryan]

bryan, i think you have a pretty severe misconception of what evolution actually is. if speciation with a population of beetles occures, that is macroevolution even though they're both beetles still. and adaptations within the same animals IS evolution; that is why i fail to understand the big theological problem people have. apes -> human is a theological problem because the bible is pretty clear that God created people in His image. but again, i'm pretty sure that that is erroneous evolutionary theory. show me where in the bible God says about His creation that it shall not change. because that is all evolution is. to me the way many christians talk about evolution is honestly superstitious to my ears.

Oh, I'm perfectly aware that many humanists try to claim that these minor changes count as evolution, but that is part of their deception. They include these things in their definition of evolution, and as soon as you do that, you can't teach AGAINST evolution, even though what they're really trying to do is use that to open the door to teach that birds came from reptiles, men from apes, etc, etc.

It's not a religious concern in the least, it's a facts and honesty issue. The definition of evolution that is sold in public schools is "big bang-all from nothing-single celled organisms becoming complex ones-complex organisms transforming from one species to another". That, is a fairy tale. But because the evolutionists have several different definitions of what counts as evolution, they can be presenting the evidence for one type (that no one has any probelm accepting) while trying to delude people into thinking its the evidence for the other (when it has nothing to do with it).

 

[victorhadin]

I believe that you will find, Bryan, that the theory of evolution genuinely does encompass such long-term evolution and the opinions of yourself and the scientific community seem to differ on this. It is the same process; only the timescales differ.