[_ Old Earth _] Evolution Goes To Court

[unred typo]

I said; “Most religions have a deity that is the creator of everything. ID is quite generic, certainly as generic as evolution is in regard to it’s religious view, or rather anti-religious view.†You changed this to “most of the top religions†and then you discounted all the religions I listed. It was too easy because you didn’t even deal with the issue. Do you think you can get away with that?

What are you trying to say about Confucius? God is the God of all people, not just Jews and Christians. God is love. His followers are distinguished by the message of love. Do you think if a Chinese man prays to the Creator God, another god is going to answer him? When God called Abraham, he wasn’t a Jew. LOL.

You continue to insist that we have no evidence for Jesus. Are you blind, mentally impaired or just trying to be obtuse? You sound as disingenuous as some of the old communist propagandists in a sixties spy movie. Do you think if you say it enough, you’ll actually believe it? It terrifies you that he is real and he’s coming back soon, doesn‘t it? It should. Think of the lives you have ruined by destroying their faith. They don’t know what to believe because of your lies. It’s one thing to do it in ignorance. When you know better, it’s quite another. God is love, but he ‘don’t like ugly’ and he is going to destroy all lies and all liars with the brightness of his return. Lies that take away from the truth of God’s word leave people with no hope for the future. If you were searching in truth to find the truth, you would have found it by now, from reading some of the posts on the back pages of this thread. It’s not too late for you but it’s close.

Your world must be made up of ungodly countries. In America, most people believe in God and generously make room for those who are less fortunate and don’t have a god of their own.

The evidence is there for all to see, and it fits into the creation account like a hand in a glove. The more you uncover, the more it shows the hand of God.

I don’t mind not ‘getting’ your hominid evolutionary chain sequence. You’ll be changing it again or starting back at square one and calling it an advancement of your ToE. Most of your proponents can’t even explain it correctly. I’m not sure you can. It sounds less and less plausible the more you try.

Reznwerks wrote:

The most financial support required for most subjects is a salary. If you want to teach children special subjects based on a fee there are enough independent classes available outside the school system to accomplish this.

Most parents are not knowledgable to determine what courses will be needed in the future and this lack of knowledge will short change the child forever.

Why should the state give out vouchers to private schools to do what they are supposed to do the first time. If the state is not doing its job then I suggest they get their act together not pay twice for the same job.

All special interest classes should be elective and outside the school system. Parents should be given a voucher for each child to spend toward the education they choose. It’s not fair that the public school system is teaching a particular view that is in opposition to any religious view. The founders of this country were most worried about state oppression of religion and the separation of church and state clause was meant to protect religious views from government. We are guaranteed the right to choose what we believe and have taught to our children. The state should not interfere with these choices and only provide the basic training to read, write, and do math and geography. This would take the whole religion/ anti-religion issue out of publicly funded education.

Parents care more about their own children than the teachers or the state. If they aren’t “knowledgable†enough to determine their own children’s curriculum, it’s probably because they were educated in public schools where they were taught state chosen courses and not how to think for themselves. I’m sure there will be advisors to help them anyway. The point is, every family chooses for themselves what their own children will learn and how to succeed in those fields of endeavor. As it is now, creationists are forced to take their children out of public schools and pay twice for their children’s education. First in taxes and then for their own books or private schools. They will manage, don’t worry. I was just making an appeal to fairness which you don’t seem to understand the concept of.

Reznwerks wrote:

Evolution is fact and if you went to the many sites I listed for you , you would understand that.

You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. Not even scientists call evolution a ‘fact’, since they know the difference between ‘facts’ and ‘theories.’ Gordon Taylor observes, “In all the thousands of fly-breeding experiments carried out all over the world for more than fifty years, a distinct new species has never been seen to emerge.†This is with men trying to make changes, not waiting for chance happenings. Without God, there would be no fruit flies, let alone evolution in fruit flies or anything else.
The suppression of the truth and the blatant lies you try to pass off as actual information would be laughable if it wasn‘t effecting the beliefs of young people who can‘t discern between fact and fiction.

BTW, 100% of creationists believe in creation too.

Reznwerks wrote:

Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species

You know that only sounds like real evidence. It has no basis in reality. Humans are more genetically similar to other forms of life. Why don’t you tell us about that? Why don’t you tell us about the discouragement of geneticists who realize their theories are all washed up in the flood of evidence die-hard evolutionists keep trying to suppress?

 

[reznwerks]

majority

I said; “Most religions have a deity that is the creator of everything. ID is quite generic, certainly as generic as evolution is in regard to it’s religious view, or rather anti-religious view.†You changed this to “most of the top religions†and then you discounted all the religions I listed. It was too easy because you didn’t even deal with the issue. Do you think you can get away with that?
I did deal with the issue since the idea of teaching ID is primarily being pushed by YEC CHRISTIANS in this country only. "MOST " religions are considered the top three or four and that is Christian which encompasses all that you listed and more ( Some 1400 different Christian sects) Jewish and Islam followed by Hindu I think of which they have several creation accounts.

What are you trying to say about Confucius?

God is the God of all people, not just Jews and Christians.
You still can't show where a God exists and furthmore the bible doesn't say that God is the God of all people. If anything the O/T is nothing more than the God of the Hebrew fighting their battles. A more untrue statement has never been made and it was slick of you and the Id Proponents to try to slip this one in as if somehow there is this broad consensus of diverse religious groups trying to introduce the concept of Id.

God is love.
God is missing and can't be found.

His followers are distinguished by the message of love. Do you think if a Chinese man prays to the Creator God, another god is going to answer him?
How man Gods do you think there are? Getting one to answer is tough enough. So far no one can show where God answers anything. Yes, no or not now as the result of asking for something is not evidence of communication with the almighty. LOL

When God called Abraham, he wasn’t a Jew. LOL.
Outside of the bible we don't know it ever happened? The bible is a book by the Jew for the Jew . Isn't it logical that the stories would only concern Jews and their beliefs and their interpretation of events is colored by their perception not necessarily reality and until one can prove otherwise if their is no evidence then it probably never happened.

You continue to insist that we have no evidence for Jesus. Are you blind, mentally impaired or just trying to be obtuse?
No, just realistic. There is no first hand evidence of Jesus plain and simple and you can't and don't have any. Please don't go off on a tangent as we have done this before. Do the research yourself as I have done.

You sound as disingenuous as some of the old communist propagandists in a sixties spy movie. Do you think if you say it enough, you’ll actually believe it?
This is your modus operandi not mine. I am not clinging to beliefs you are. I only look at the evidence and decide if it is acceptable. You only look at the bible which has been shown to be inaccurate and unbelievable based on the evidence and refuse to look at that possibility.

It terrifies you that he is real and he’s coming back soon, doesn‘t it?
If I was terrified of him coming back don't you think I would change my tune? LOL If anyone is terrified it is you in the fact that if you are wrong then you are wasting your life and at he end not going to get the reward you expect and that the end really is the end.

It should. Think of the lives you have ruined by destroying their faith.
I don't see it that way. I have enriched their lives by opening their eyes to the truth so that they can see the value in life itself and not live their life based on promises that are not going to be fulfilled.

They don’t know what to believe because of your lies.
I don't lie, I only show the logic of the evidence or the lack of it. If it doesn't support the fantastic claims made then thats where it lies. (pardon the pun)

It’s one thing to do it in ignorance. When you know better, it’s quite another.
Absolutely and I forgive you for it.

God is love, but he ‘don’t like ugly’ and he is going to destroy all lies and all liars with the brightness of his return.
No love is love and no one is going to come back and change things. Jesus promised to do that way back then and he didn't come back at least that is what the bible said. Jesus said "some standing here would not taste of death before his return". Well that didn't happen . The apostles believed it then and they were wrong and people believe it now and its not going to happen.

Lies that take away from the truth of God’s word leave people with no hope for the future.
Absolutely , and again the bible does this without my help.

If you were searching in truth to find the truth, you would have found it by now, from reading some of the posts on the back pages of this thread. It’s not too late for you but it’s close.
I did find it. It's in every library, every science and history book. All you have to do is investigate and read.

Your world must be made up of ungodly countries. In America, most people believe in God and generously make room for those who are less fortunate and don’t have a god of their own.
You are starting to ramble again. Believing doesn't make something true, the amount of people who believe doesn't make something true either.

The evidence is there for all to see, and it fits into the creation account like a hand in a glove. The more you uncover, the more it shows the hand of God.
These are stories made up to explain their surroundings and no evidence exists to confirm it.

I don’t mind not ‘getting’ your hominid evolutionary chain sequence. You’ll be changing it again or starting back at square one and calling it an advancement of your ToE. Most of your proponents can’t even explain it correctly. I’m not sure you can. It sounds less and less plausible the more you try.
I haven't changed anything. The process exists and continues today.

Parents care more about their own children than the teachers or the state. If they aren’t “knowledgable†enough to determine their own children’s curriculum,
Start a new thread about education.
Reznwerks wrote:

Evolution is fact and if you went to the many sites I listed for you , you would understand that.

You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. Not even scientists call evolution a ‘fact’, since they know the difference between ‘facts’ and ‘theories.’
That has been answered many times and am not going to go into it again. Take your head out of the sand and if you want to learn you will do so. Denying the evidence doesn't change the reality of evolution.

Gordon Taylor observes, “In all the thousands of fly-breeding experiments carried out all over the world for more than fifty years, a distinct new species has never been seen to emerge.â€Â
Doesn't mean anything. You are comparing 50 years to millions? Why do we need to show a new species in 50 years. Thats not how evolution works and who Taylor is a prime example of someone that doesn't understand evolution and probably hasn't tried nor want to. He is a classic example of putting ones head in the sand.

This is with men trying to make changes, not waiting for chance happenings. Without God, there would be no fruit flies, let alone evolution in fruit flies or anything else.
Are you admitting that evolution occurs in fruit flies? LOL Still no proof of God and until you show some and then show the intentions you have a long road to haul.


The suppression of the truth and the blatant lies you try to pass off as actual information would be laughable if it wasn‘t effecting the beliefs of young people who can‘t discern between fact and fiction.
Oh I forgot the WHOLE WORLD IS WRONG and only UNREAD is corrrect. LOL



Reznwerks wrote: [quote:f1ea8] Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species

You know that only sounds like real evidence. It has no basis in reality.
Oh I forgot that the tests conducted are not really being done and that story was only put out there to aggravate you. The claim of being similar to chimps was only a joke. LOL

Humans are more genetically similar to other forms of life. Why don’t you tell us about that?
Thank you for the time. Humans are very similar to other mammals in how their body works but don't know if we can claim MORE similar to other life forms. Perhaps you can provide a link to what you were refering not that it would change the subject at all. All living things are very similar in the fact they take in nutrients and process them and excrete them. This is how the evolutionary process began a long time ago.
Why don’t you tell us about the discouragement of geneticists who realize their theories are all washed up in the flood of evidence die-hard evolutionists keep trying to suppress?
I am not going to tell you that because it is not true. You know that.

[/quote:f1ea8]

 

[PHIL121]

Still drifting further and further off-topic with a bunch of longwinded quotes oand posts, I see...

Michael Behe, the author of "Darwin's Black Box" is scheduled to testify this week I see...

By MICHAEL RUBINKAM
The Associated Press
BETHLEHEM, Pa. - Marginalized by his university colleagues, ridiculed as a quack by the scientific establishment, Michael Behe is thankful for the one thing that allows him to continue his work in relative peace: tenure.
As one of the nation's leading proponents of intelligent design, the mild-mannered Lehigh University biochemistry professor has sought to provide academic heft to a movement that seeks to change the way Darwin's theory of evolution is taught in public schools.
In papers, speeches and a 1996 best seller called "Darwin's Black Box," Behe argues that Darwinian evolution cannot fully explain the biological complexities of life, suggesting the work of an intelligent force. Mainstream scientists, including those in his own department, reject Behe's assertions as profoundly unscientific.
The debate has moved into a federal courtroom in Harrisburg, where Behe is scheduled to testify this week in a landmark case that will determine whether a public school district can include a statement about intelligent design in its biology curriculum.
"The fact that most biology texts act more as cheerleaders for Darwin's theory rather than trying to develop the critical faculties of their students shows the need I think for such statements," Behe told The Associated Press in an interview, his first public comments since the trial got under way last month.
In the court case, eight families are seeking to overturn a policy instituted by the Dover Area School District a year ago that says students must hear a brief statement about intelligent design before classes on evolution. The statement says Darwin's theory of evolution is "not a fact," has inexplicable "gaps," and refers students to an intelligent design textbook.
Critics say intelligent design is merely "creationism in a cheap tuxedo" - a thinly disguised repackaging of the biblical account of creation, whose teaching in public schools was barred in 1987 by the U.S. Supreme Court. Advocates say the principles of ID were in development years before that ruling.
Behe, who is a practicing Roman Catholic, said his religious views do not color his work.
"I don't have a theological dog in this fight. I'm just trying to do my job as a biochemist," he said.
But Behe's own biology department recently distanced itself from him. In August, the department posted a statement on its Web site that says intelligent design "has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific." The faculty, the statement adds, "are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory."
Neal Simon, the department's chairman, said the intelligent design issue had become sufficiently public that the faculty felt the need to "actively and forcefully" condemn Behe's work.
"For us, Dr. Behe's position is simply not science. It is not grounded in science and should not be treated as science," Simon said.
While life on the academic fringes can be lonely, Behe finds community in an e-mail discussion group that he said has 500 members and includes like-minded faculty from universities around the nation. Most keep their views to themselves, Behe said, because "it's dangerous to your career to be identified as an ID proponent."
Indeed, campuses around the nation are rebelling against intelligent design. Earlier this month, the University of Idaho banned the concept from being taught in hard science classes such as biology, a move widely seen as a rebuke of university biologist Scott Minnich, a prominent supporter of ID. At Iowa State University, astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez's support of ID prompted a fierce backlash among faculty.
Mainstream scientists "ascribe either diminished intelligence or evil motives or financial incentives or some less-than-respectable motivation to people who do not share their framework," said Behe, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that advocates intelligent design.
The University of Pennsylvania-trained biochemist said he was a believer in Darwin when he joined Lehigh in 1985, but became a skeptic a few years later after reading Michael Denton's book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis." He said he searched the scientific literature in vain for an explanation of how Darwin's theory accounted for the rise of highly complex cellular structures.
Behe's big idea, published in "Darwin's Black Box" and the one that catapulted him to academic fame, is irreducible complexity. It is the notion that certain biochemical systems are incapable of having evolved in gradual Darwinian fashion because they require all of their parts simultaneously in order to work.
Behe uses a mousetrap to illustrate the concept. Take away any of its parts - platform, spring, hammer, catch - and the mousetrap can't catch mice.
"Intelligent design becomes apparent when you see a system that has a number of parts and you see the parts are interacting to perform a function," he said.
Steven Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, said Behe "was the first person to develop an argument for design that challenged biological evolution." His book, said Meyer, "put the positive case for design on the map in a way that some of the (previous ID) work had not done."
Critics say Behe's views are unscientific because they can't be tested in a laboratory. They have attacked his arguments on logical grounds, too, arguing that systems that seem to be irreducibly complex could well have evolved through random mutation and natural selection.
"I think Behe truly believes that he has discovered something quite astonishing," said Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, which supports the teaching of evolution in public schools. "But no one is using irreducible complexity as a research strategy, and with very good reason ... because it's completely fruitless."
While it succeeded commercially with 235,000 copies in print, "Darwin's Black Box" was largely panned by academia, and Behe has long since stopped applying for grants or trying to get his ID-related work published in mainstream scientific journals.
But tenure has given him the academic freedom to express his views without fear of losing his job. Behe, whose wife has home-schooled their nine children, was given tenure before he began advocating ID.
"Because of the immense publicity that's mushroomed around this issue in the past six months, more people are getting emotional about the topic," Behe said. "And it's generally not on my side."

 

[Barbarian]

You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. Not even scientists call evolution a ‘fact’, since they know the difference between ‘facts’ and ‘theories.’

Since it's directly observed to happen, it's a fact, as well as a theory.

Gordon Taylor observes, “In all the thousands of fly-breeding experiments carried out all over the world for more than fifty years, a distinct new species has never been seen to emerge.â€Â

Gordon doesn't know what he's talking about. First, a new species of fly was observed to have speciated in the wild. Second, a number of speciation events have been observed in laboratory stocks.

Would you like to learn about them?

This is with men trying to make changes, not waiting for chance happenings.

In fact, the first directly observed speciation of flies was in the wild, with no human intervention at all.

Without God, there would be no fruit flies,

Without God, there would be nothing at all. But without evolution, there would be no flies.

Reznwerks wrote: Quote:
Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species

You know that only sounds like real evidence. It has no basis in reality.

It's true. But that's only the start. There are many introns in the genomes of humans and chimps, old viral fragments, and so on. Most are identical. They are just relicts of old virus infections that left a fragment of the virus in the genome, and this has been reproduced ever since. They were historical accidents, and the fact that humans and chimps have more in common than they do with any other animal is powerful evidence that they share a common ancestor.

Humans are more genetically similar to other forms of life. Why don’t you tell us about that?

If he won't I'd sure like you to tell us. That would be quite a story. Enlighten us.

Why don’t you tell us about the discouragement of geneticists who realize their theories are all washed up in the flood of evidence die-hard evolutionists keep trying to suppress?

I'd like to hear about that, too. At the point where genetics has made one important breakthrough after another, what makes youi think they are "discouraged?"

Please tell us about these things. Don't forget the evidence.

 

[PHIL121]

Since it's directly observed to happen, it's a fact, as well as a theory.

Gordon Taylor observes, “In all the thousands of fly-breeding experiments carried out all over the world for more than fifty years, a distinct new species has never been seen to emerge.â€Â

Gordon doesn't know what he's talking about. First, a new species of fly was observed to have speciated in the wild. Second, a number of speciation events have been observed in laboratory stocks.
.

Care to post some evidence of this? While micro-evolution is well-documented, just about all the "stories' I've heard of finding new species have been spurious.

 

[Barbarian]

Sure. The first known case of directly observed macroevolution was the evolution of a new species of primrose, Oenothera gigas, from Oenothera lamarckiana. We now know that the speciation event was a polyploidy. The two species are totally infertile between each other.

Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia.

It's harder to keep an eye on in the wild, but speciation happens there, too.

In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).

Some time, btween 1958 and 1963, the two populations evolved sufficiently to become separate species.

Incidentally, most "scientific creationists" readily admit that new species, genera, and even families evolve.

 

[Solo]

A NEW SPECIES IS NEVER PRODUCED
The fruit flies always remain fruit flies.

After decades of study, without immediately killing or sterilizing them, 400 different mutational features have been identified in fruit flies. But none of these changes the fruit fly to a different species.

"Out of 400 mutations that have been provided by Drosophila melanogaster, there is not one that can be called a new species. It does not seem, therefore, that the central problem of evolution can be solved by mutations."â€â€*Maurice Caullery, Genetics and Heredity (1964), p. 119.

*"Richard Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [insignificant] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species."â€â€Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 33.

A thousand known fruit-fly mutations placed in one individualâ€â€would still not produce a new species!

"In the best-known organisms, like Drosophila, innumerable mutants are known. If we were able to combine a thousand or more of such mutants in a single individual, this still would have no resemblance whatsoever to any type known as a [new] species in nature."â€â€*Richard B. Goldschmidt, "Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist," American Scientist, January 1952, p. 94.

The obstinate, stubborn little creatures!

"Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised."â€â€*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (1982), p. 61.

WHAT HAPPENS TO THE MUTATED FRUIT FLIES?
We have had opportunity to clearly learn what mutations do to a physical organism.

Fruit flies which receive mutations are always weakened in one way or another.

"The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics were done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity."â€â€*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126.

The mutated creatures die out, when placed out in nature with normal hardy specimens.

"A review of known facts about their ability to survive has led to no other conclusion than that they [the mutated offspring] are always constitutionally weaker than their parent form or species, and in a population with free competition they are eliminated . . Therefore they are never found in nature (e.g. not a single one of the several hundred [types] of Drosophila mutation), and therefore, they are able to appear only in the favorable environment of the experimental field or laboratory."â€â€*H. Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildng (1957), p. 1186.

The classical example of the damaging effects of mutations is to be found in what scientists have done to fruit flies by inducing mutations in them.

"Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known which diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the eyes, and in the body reduce the wings, eyes, bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown."â€â€*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man (1955), p. 105.

No new-species fruit flies have ever resulted from sixty years of irradiation the poor creatures.

"It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the worldâ€â€flies which produce a new generation every eleven daysâ€â€they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme."â€â€*Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 48.

Pitman says the experiments have only produced geneticists' monsters.

"Take the example of fruit flies (Drosophila). Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other geneticists have subjected generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions of heat, cold, light, dark, and treatment by chemicals and radiation. All sorts of mutations, practically all trivial or positively deleterious, have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not really: Few of the geneticists' monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type."â€â€*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 70.

SUMMARY
Once a fruit fly, always a fruit fly.

The following news article sums it all up. Notice the fact that, in those instances in which damaged fruit flies survive long enough, they change back into regular fruit fliesâ€â€even those without eyes!

"For 80 years scientists have been experimenting with the lowly fruit fly (Drosophila), trying to prove that all life on planet earth is the result of a series of `good accidents.'

"Evolutionists, through a marvelous leap of faith, believe that the almost endless variety and complexity of plants and animals `evolved' from an ancient pool of `primordial soup.'

"How do they believe this is possible? By millions and billions of accidents. For example, an early fish might accidentally grow a new kind of fin which helped him swim faster and escape his enemies. Then his fins might accidentally turn to legs he could use to walk on land, and so on.

"All this is based on a faith by the evolutionists that somehow, somewhere a gene changed to give this higher life form. It has to be faith, because there is yet no evidence that when genes have accidents (called mutations), that is for the better.

"The evidence is overwhelming that such accidents either make the gene worse or, at best, no better than the original.

"After all, how often do you see a car run faster and more smoothly after a head-on collision?

"Well, back to fruit flies. Because fruit flies reproduce many generations in a very short time, scientists picked them for the experiment hoping to compress thousands of years of `evolution' into a few years of lab work.

"After 80 years and millions of generations of fruit flies subjected to X rays and chemicals which cause mutations, all they have been able to produce are more of the same: fruit flies.

"Andâ€â€more importantlyâ€â€they have all been no better or stronger, and many have been weaker. All the changes eventually reached limits that, when approached, the strains of the fruit flies grew progressively weaker and died.

"And when the mutated strains were allowed to breed for several generations, they gradually changed back to the original form.

"One experiment produced fruit flies without eyes. Yet, after a few life cycles, flies with eyes began to appear. Some kind of genetic repair mechanism took over and blocked any possibility of evolution.

"God was very careful in Genesis to state that each of the animals were created `after his kind.' After 80 years and millions of generations, God was proven right: A fruit fly will always be a fruit fly."â€â€"Evolutionists Still Looking for a `Good Accident,' " Battle Cry, July-August, 1990.


http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut10.htm

 

[Barbarian]

A NEW SPECIES IS NEVER PRODUCED

Sorry. As you learned, that is false. Even the "scientific creationists" now concede that new species evolve.

The fruit flies always remain fruit flies.

And anthropoids remain anthropoids. But that allows new species and genera to evolve. The differences between the various genera of fruit flies is much greater than the differences between men and chimps.

After decades of study, without immediately killing or sterilizing them, 400 different mutational features have been identified in fruit flies. But none of these changes the fruit fly to a different species.

As you learned, several new species have been observed to evolve.

Reality trumps anyone's opinion.

A thousand known fruit-fly mutations placed in one individualâ€â€would still not produce a new species!

Sorry, you now know better. And many of your fellow creationists have admitted so.

Fruit flies which receive mutations are always weakened in one way or another.

If that was true, Dobzhanski's new species in the Orinoco, would not exist. It would have been eliminated by competition. But that's not what happened.

The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics were done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity."â€â€*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126.

This is a particularly dishonest quote-mining. Dobzhansky is here explaining why early geneticists thought that mutations were generally harmful. Early on, only very great changes were noticable. And these tended to be harmful. The vast majority of mutations didn't do much an were not noticed. The guys at your web site know that. But they correctly reckoned that you wouldn't know it. Now you do.

"It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the worldâ€â€flies which produce a new generation every eleven daysâ€â€they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme."â€â€*Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 48.

Three-dimensional structural characterization of a novel Drosophila melanogaster acylphosphatase.

Zuccotti S, Rosano C, Ramazzotti M, Degl'Innocenti D, Stefani M, Manao G, Bolognesi M.

Department of Physics-INFM and Center of Excellence for Biomedical Research, University of Genova, Via Dodecaneso 33, 16132 Genova, Italy.

Analysis of the Drosophila melanogaster EST database led to the discovery and cloning of a novel acylphosphatase. The CG18505 gene coding for a new enzyme (AcPDro2) is clearly distinct from the previously described CG16870Acyp gene, which also codes for a D. melanogaster acylphosphatase (AcPDro). The putative catalytic residues, together with residues held to stabilize the acylphosphatase fold, are conserved in the two encoded proteins. Crystals of AcPDro2, which belong to the trigonal space group P3(1)21, with unit-cell parameters a = b = 45.8, c = 98.6 angstroms, gamma = 120 degrees, allowed the solution of the protein structure by molecular replacement and its refinement to 1.5 angstroms resolution. The AcPDro2 active-site structure is discussed.

Lots more where that came from. Do you need more?

SUMMARY
Once a fruit fly, always a fruit fly.

Creationist summary of evolution of humans:
"Once a primate, always a primate."

"How do they believe this is possible? By millions and billions of accidents. For example, an early fish might accidentally grow a new kind of fin which helped him swim faster and escape his enemies. Then his fins might accidentally turn to legs he could use to walk on land, and so on.

Of course, this poor fellow is completely ignorant of evolutionary theory. The evidence confirms that some early fish, with bony fins, used them to move about on the bottom of shallow ponds. (some still do this) A few managed to move about on land from time to time. (some still do this)

Some spent more time on land than others. Eventually, they only had to go back to reproduce.

"All this is based on a faith by the evolutionists that somehow, somewhere a gene changed to give this higher life form.

Nope. Mostly, genetics, fossil record, comparative anotomy, etc.

It has to be faith, because there is yet no evidence that when genes have accidents (called mutations), that is for the better.

Nope. That's wrong, too. Would you like to hear abouit some useful mutations that have been directly observed?

 

[unred typo]

Of course, this poor fellow is completely ignorant of evolutionary theory. The evidence confirms that some early fish, with bony fins, used them to move about on the bottom of shallow ponds. (some still do this) A few managed to move about on land from time to time. (some still do this)

Some spent more time on land than others. Eventually, they only had to go back to reproduce.

Great. Frogs go from little fishy creatures to air breathing land dwellers in a matter of days. If any animal can do that, what makes you think it takes “millions of years?†It’s a design feature built in from it’s creation or God makes changes as he sees fit, or it only happens in evolutionary dreams. Observed changes are just the result of one or a combination of those things. Even if evolutionary changes could be shown to have occurred in different animals, it doesn’t classify them as different kinds since the word “kinds“ is so subjective. God simply created a few hundred kinds and gave them almost endless DNA possibilities to evolve into an amazing variety.

 

[Barbarian]

Great. Frogs go from little fishy creatures to air breathing land dwellers in a matter of days.

Individuals don't evolve. Populations do. You're a little confused.

If any animal can do that, what makes you think it takes “millions of years?â€Â

Evidence. Try doing it with a carp. And yet, nature can do that, in a few million years.

It’s a design feature built in from it’s creation or God makes changes as he sees fit, or it only happens in evolutionary dreams.

Evolution is indeed God's built-in feature.

Observed changes are just the result of one or a combination of those things. Even if evolutionary changes could be shown to have occurred in different animals, it doesn’t classify them as different kinds since the word “kinds“ is so subjective.

Yep. Meaningless.

God simply created a few hundred kinds and gave them almost endless DNA possibilities to evolve into an amazing variety.

Sorry. That's neither scriptural nor supported by evidence. It's just your personal doctrine you added to Scripture to make it more acceptable to you.

 

[MrVersatile48]

My apologies 4 autologout looming

I only have time to post these useful links, but promise to read this entire fascinating thread after lunch, OK?

http://www.christianbooks.com

As well as those 23 highly qualified scientists who contributed to that Grand Canyon: A Creationist Viewpoint book, there are hundreds of MSc/PhD-level scientists, from micro-biology to astronomy, who see so much clear evidence of Intelligent Design that they reject the atheistic brainwashing of their education & worship the Almighty Creator

Appropriate place to recommend the helpful menu @ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp

As promised, I've brought in their "Revised & Expanded Answers Book" by Drs Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, Carl Wieland, Werner Gitt, John Baumgardner, Russell Humphreys, Len Morris, David Catchpoole & others



Here's an amazing menu of online evidence for a young Earth & universe:-:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp



Do hit their website - & the comprehensive 1 @ http://www.creationism.org

& a 2nd menu of articles there - http://www.creationism.org/articles/index.htm


& details of 21 books:- http://www.creationism.org/books/index.htm


& the ID one @ http://www.discovery.org/csc

& more books here:-
http://www.discovery.org/csc/essentialReadings.php

Here's their "Top Questions" link:-
http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php

i]This 1 may be especially helpful:-[/i]
http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestio ... nEvolution

& this 1:-
http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestio ... gentDesign

 

[MrVersatile48]

They DO actually..

Believe it or not, most religions don't have a 6 day creation story or have the same belief system as Christians do, are you going to shut them out?[/quote]

MOST cultures - all over the world - tell of the global flood of Genesis 6 - inc India, China, Africa, mid-&-far-east...

The very formation & preservation of fossils needed the cataclysmic pressure of the global flood, say leading hydrologists & geologists - in the classic book, "Noah's Ark & the Genesis Flood" by Dr Henry Morris & others, & by 23 PhD/MSc-level scientists - inc geologists & hydrologists - in the recent book, "The Grand Canyon: A Creationist Viewpoint"

It is WELL attested that the Cambrian Explosion proves that fossils of simple & complex species are scattered thropughout the fossil-bearing strata - NO evidence of gradual change from simple forms to complex, but MILLIONS of 'missing links' - @ every so-called step on the fictional ladder/tree/chain

Some fossils even transverse accross several starata - that evo-loopies stupidly insist took aeons to form - when the only sane explanation is that sudden global Flood & its subsiding - see Genesis 6-9

Don't forget the reason for the global flood in Gen 6 - "The earth became full of violence & God saw how great was the wickedness of man on the Earth, how every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually"

How very 21st century, yes?

Don't forget 2 Peter 3 says that the Earth is now reserved for destruction by fire for the same reason

Know that each & every one of us will one day face Jesus as the Judge of all Earth - Revelation 20

Time to repent of every evil thoght, word & deed - time to ask Jesus to forgive all your sins & to invite Him into your heart as Saviour & Lord of your life

For assurance of salvation by the sheer grace of God, thru faith in Christ's atoning sacrifice @ Calvary's cross, see John 3, Romans 3, Galatians 2:15/16, Ephesians 2:8/9, etc

God bless!

Ian

 

[unred typo]

The Barbarian wrote:

Individuals don't evolve. Populations do. You're a little confused.

The thing that evolves the most is the ToE terminology and theories. Forgive me if I can’t keep up. You’ve got as many sects as the protestant church, too. Staying ‘EC’ is as difficult as being ‘PC’. The point was that changes occur in God’s hand without million year gaps, fits and starts. It’s almost as if he knows what he’s doing to keep his creation intact until he‘s ready to destroy it again. Romans 8:20 says; “For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. 24 For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.â€Â


The Barbarian wrote:

Evidence. Try doing it (evolution in weeks) with a carp. And yet, nature can do that, in a few million years.

We’re not doing it. Nature isn’t doing it. God is. Evolution is evidence of his work, either planned from the beginning or adjustments since. It didn’t take him long to create it and it wouldn’t take any longer to change it.

The Barbarian wrote:

Evolution is indeed God's built-in feature.

Well, amen to that. Now if we could just agree on the time frame and the limits of it, we’d be in the same church, sitting on the same pew.

The Barbarian wrote:

Yep. Meaningless.

The word for ‘kind’ is far from meaningless. The Blue Letter Bible says: “ kind, sometimes a species (usually of animals) Groups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved not gained. A new species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding occurs. By this definition a new species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of an existing "kind".†We would probably disagree on what it meant spelled out in flesh and blood. According to you, a bird is a ‘kind’ of dinosaur. You might be right but I doubt it.



The Barbarian wrote:

Sorry. That's neither scriptural nor supported by evidence. It's just your personal doctrine you added to Scripture to make it more acceptable to you.

I said: “God simply created a few hundred kinds and gave them almost endless DNA possibilities to evolve into an amazing variety.â€Â

How has my interpretation violated scripture? I’m not making dinosaurs into birds after millions of years of evolution. If a T Rex is a bird kind, prove it. If it was, you’re going to have to give Rex wings to stay in tune with scripture. I can see Archie might be a bird kind but most dinos don’t have wings. Here’s the account:

Gen 1: 20 Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens." 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." 23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind"; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

‘Be fruitful and multiply’ is apparently ‘according to their kinds’ and we can only guess at what ‘kinds’ were originally created. A lion is a kind of cat, in my book. A Chihuahua may be the same kind of animal as a wolf or dingo. A kangaroo may be a kind of rat for all we know. You might think a tadpole was a kind of fish if you didn’t know better and it could be according to God’s definition.

That’s my take on it. Let’s hear what you do with it. :fadein:

 

[Barbarian]

The thing that evolves the most is the ToE terminology and theories. Forgive me if I can’t keep up. You’ve got as many sects as the protestant church, too.

Hmm... so that means Protestantism is wrong, because they can agree on the details? How so?

Staying ‘EC’ is as difficult as being ‘PC’.

In any science, there are disagreements on the fine points. If there wasn't, it would be dead. Once we know everything there is to know about biology, there's no need for scientists.

(apparently unrelated scriptural passages cited)

Perhaps you should stick to evidence.

Barbarian observes:
Evidence. Try doing it (evolution in weeks) with a carp. And yet, nature can do that, in a few million years.

We’re not doing it. Nature isn’t doing it.

Sorry. Demonstrably wrong. We have directly observed it happening.

God is. Evolution is evidence of his work, either planned from the beginning or adjustments since. It didn’t take him long to create it and it wouldn’t take any longer to change it.

He does almost everything in this world by nature. But it seems bizarre to claim that storm fronts work as they do, because God is pushing the clouds around.

Barbarian observes:
Evolution is indeed God's built-in feature.

Well, amen to that. Now if we could just agree on the time frame and the limits of it, we’d be in the same church, sitting on the same pew.

For that, you have to go to the evidence. He took a long time. But then, He has plenty of time.

Barbarian observes:
Yep. Meaningless.

The word for ‘kind’ is far from meaningless. The Blue Letter Bible says: “ kind, sometimes a species (usually of animals) Groups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool.

God's Bible doesn't say anything about gene pools. Or evolution. Or superconductivity. This "new and improved" Bible of yours, might not be so improved.

This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved not gained.

Increases in information are routinely observed in organisms. Would you like some examples?

A new species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding occurs.

Or by a mutation that adds an enzyme that makes the two populations reproductively isolated.

By this definition a new species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of an existing "kind".â€Â

The problem for creationists is that all living things so far have proven to be the same "kind." We have more in common with bacteria, than we have things by which we differ.

We would probably disagree on what it meant spelled out in flesh and blood. According to you, a bird is a ‘kind’ of dinosaur. You might be right but I doubt it.

Almost certainly. There's just an outside chance that birds and dinos have a common, non-dinosauran ancestor. But that's all the wiggle room there is.

Barbarian wrote:

I said: “God simply created a few hundred kinds and gave them almost endless DNA possibilities to evolve into an amazing variety.â€Â

How has my interpretation violated scripture?

Unsupported addition to scripture.

I’m not making dinosaurs into birds after millions of years of evolution. If a T Rex is a bird kind, prove it.

The reasons scientists accept that birds evolved from dinosaurs are many. They are from genetics, fossil record, anatomy, embryology, and that finding that T-rex heme is most like that of birds.

‘Be fruitful and multiply’ is apparently ‘according to their kinds’ and we can only guess at what ‘kinds’ were originally created. A lion is a kind of cat, in my book. A Chihuahua may be the same kind of animal as a wolf or dingo. A kangaroo may be a kind of rat for all we know.

Actually, humans are closer relatives to a rat than a kangaroo. A lot closer. Placentals are on an entirely different branch of mammalia than marsupials.

You might think a tadpole was a kind of fish if you didn’t know better and it could be according to God’s definition.

In a sense, it is. So are we. We just moved on a little farther. There are fossil fish that look a lot more like land animals than tadpoles do.

 

[unred typo]

The Barbarian wrote:

Hmm... so that means Protestantism is wrong, because they can agree on the details? How so?

Who said that?



The Barbarian wrote:

In any science, there are disagreements on the fine points. If there wasn't, it would be dead. Once we know everything there is to know about biology, there's no need for scientists.
(apparently unrelated scriptural passages cited)

Perhaps you should stick to evidence.

I didn’t say it was right or wrong to have disagreements, just that you should realize that not everyone is going to keep up with the latest or the many variations.
I’m sorry you didn’t understand significance to the scripture I quoted. Would you like to learn how it is applicable?


The Barbarian wrote:

Sorry. Demonstrably wrong. We have directly observed it happening.

Nature doesn’t do it. You may see the brush painting a canvas and not see the artist around the corner. That doesn’t mean that the brush is doing the painting.



The Barbarian wrote:

He does almost everything in this world by nature. But it seems bizarre to claim that storm fronts work as they do, because God is pushing the clouds around.

He doesn’t have to push anything around. I’m sure most of the creation is on auto pilot. When it says in Romans that the whole creation was made subject to vanity, it means that it is put in a self-centered holding pattern. He probably just steps in to make corrections and in answer to prayers or to stop judgments in response to repentance, etc.



The Barbarian wrote:

For that, you have to go to the evidence. He took a long time. But then, He has plenty of time.

He has all the time he needs. He could have taken two forevers but that isn’t what he told us.




The Barbarian wrote:

God's Bible doesn't say anything about gene pools. Or evolution. Or superconductivity. This "new and improved" Bible of yours, might not be so improved.

The Bible doesn’t say anything about lots of things. Most of all it doesn’t tell you to put your brain on the shelf.



The Barbarian wrote:

Increases in information are routinely observed in organisms. Would you like some examples?

I don’t know if you can say that scrambling up AaBbCcDd to be AaAcccBdccc or BBBaaaCbbDA or BaaabCdddA or DcDcacabccD or BdBAaAABDCBA is an increase of information. They are just variations of the originals.



The Barbarian wrote:

The problem for creationists is that all living things so far have proven to be the same "kind." We have more in common with bacteria, than we have things by which we differ.

Nope. No problem. We have flying kinds. We have land creatures. We have creeping things. We have sea creatures. God didn’t get much more specific than that. Basically they are whatever he said they were. You can group them into a zillion categories if it makes you happy. You can group them by genes or heme, genetics, fossil record, anatomy, embryology, or the color of their eyes or the size of their nostrils. It doesn’t mean a thing to God’s reality. It only bothers creationists who spend too much time arguing with people like you. :wink:


The Barbarian wrote:

Almost certainly. There's just an outside chance that birds and dinos have a common, non-dinosauran ancestor. But that's all the wiggle room there is.

I’m not even going to have a hard time deciding if a dinosaur is a beast of the earth or a flying animal or a sea creature. I don’t really care. Scary, isn’t it?



The Barbarian wrote:

Unsupported addition to scripture.

There’s something else that I don’t care about. It doesn’t matter to me if scripture supports my theories. I don’t get too attached to them anyways. All that I care is that my theories don’t conflict with scripture. It’s a beautiful thing. Simply beautiful.



The Barbarian wrote:

The reasons scientists accept that birds evolved from dinosaurs are many. They are from genetics, fossil record, anatomy, embryology, and that finding that T-rex heme is most like that of birds.

It really amazes me that someone pays them to study all that and make up those acidefinaphorianus words to describe things that only have significance to them. The rest of the world just shrugs and mutters, “ok, whatever… pass the gravy, pleaseâ€Â



The Barbarian wrote:

Actually, humans are closer relatives to a rat than a kangaroo. A lot closer. Placentals are on an entirely different branch of mammalia than marsupials.

Are you done with the gravy?



The Barbarian wrote:

In a sense, it is. So are we. We just moved on a little farther. There are fossil fish that look a lot more like land animals than tadpoles do.

You were a single cell and a wiggle sperm not too long ago. I don’t think you could say you were ever either a fish or a tadpole. I’m so glad I can just enjoy seeing my grandchildren scoop them up in jars and watching them turn into frogs and thank our great, incredible creator for making such an amazingly interesting, imaginative world for his pleasure and ours.

 

[Barbarian]

(Much is made of the fact that scientists disagree on the details of evolutionary theory)

Barbarian asks:
Hmm... so that means Protestantism is wrong, because they can agree on the details? How so?

Who said that?

So what was your point?

Barbarian observes:
In any science, there are disagreements on the fine points. If there wasn't, it would be dead. Once we know everything there is to know about biology, there's no need for scientists.

(apparently unrelated scriptural passages cited)

Barbarian observes:
Perhaps you should stick to evidence.

I didn’t say it was right or wrong to have disagreements, just that you should realize that not everyone is going to keep up with the latest or the many variations.

Well, that certainly has a better tone than your first statement.

I’m sorry you didn’t understand significance to the scripture I quoted.

Since it didn't say anything about the subject, the significance is pretty hard to see. Why not tell me what you think it says?

Barbarian regarding evolution:
Sorry. Demonstrably wrong. We have directly observed it happening.

Nature doesn’t do it. You may see the brush painting a canvas and not see the artist around the corner. That doesn’t mean that the brush is doing the painting.

God is not like the Wizard of Oz, pulling strings behind a curtain. He's a lot more powerful and intelligent than creationists are willing to admit.

Barbarian observes:
He does almost everything in this world by nature. But it seems bizarre to claim that storm fronts work as they do, because God is pushing the clouds around.

He doesn’t have to push anything around. I’m sure most of the creation is on auto pilot. When it says in Romans that the whole creation was made subject to vanity, it means that it is put in a self-centered holding pattern. He probably just steps in to make corrections and in answer to prayers or to stop judgments in response to repentance, etc.

Since He's omniscient, and knows about those things before they happen, why didn't He just set the system to handle those from the start?

Barbarian observes:
For that, you have to go to the evidence. He took a long time. But then, He has plenty of time.

He has all the time he needs. He could have taken two forevers but that isn’t what he told us.

In fact, He never said how long it took. Some things, He left for us to find out.

Barbarian, objecting to inserting new material into Scripture:
God's Bible doesn't say anything about gene pools. Or evolution. Or superconductivity. This "new and improved" Bible of yours, might not be so improved.

The Bible doesn’t say anything about lots of things. Most of all it doesn’t tell you to put your brain on the shelf.

But it does tell you not to invent new doctrines like that.

Barbarian observes:
Increases in information are routinely observed in organisms. Would you like some examples?

I don’t know if you can say that scrambling up AaBbCcDd to be AaAcccBdccc or BBBaaaCbbDA or BaaabCdddA or DcDcacabccD or BdBAaAABDCBA is an increase of information. They are just variations of the originals.

So are all works of literature. Just variations of words and lettes. How about checking out information theory to learn about why new genes are considered to be information.

Guys like Gitt try to work up their own "information theories", but when it comes to actually handling information, the telecommunications guys ignore them, and pick Shannon's theory. Why? It works.

If you claim information is the way Gitt says it should be, then new information is unnecessary for evolution. Rock and a hard place.

Barbarian observes:
The problem for creationists is that all living things so far have proven to be the same "kind." We have more in common with bacteria, than we have things by which we differ.

Nope.

Yep. Biochemically, genetically, cytologically, you have more in common with E. coli, than things by which you differ. Life on Earth, in the real sense, is one kind.

Barbarian observes:
Almost certainly. There's just an outside chance that birds and dinos have a common, non-dinosauran ancestor. But that's all the wiggle room there is.

I’m not even going to have a hard time deciding if a dinosaur is a beast of the earth or a flying animal or a sea creature. I don’t really care. Scary, isn’t it?

Unfortunately intellectual curiosity is an uncommon thing.

Barbarian objects to adding new doctrines to Scripture:
Unsupported addition to scripture.

There’s something else that I don’t care about.

Being a Christian, and knowing God says not to do it, I get concerned when people do it.

Barbarian observes:
The reasons scientists accept that birds evolved from dinosaurs are many. They are from genetics, fossil record, anatomy, embryology, and that finding that T-rex heme is most like that of birds.

It really amazes me that someone pays them to study all that and make up those acidefinaphorianus words to describe things that only have significance to them.

And to physicians, and agronomists and animal breeders, and drug companies, and.... (long list)

The rest of the world just shrugs and mutters, “ok, whatever… pass the gravy, pleaseâ€Â

You get to do that, and still have antibiotics, and new surgical techniques, and so on, because there are other people who think learning about living things is more fun than selling cars.

Barbarian observes:
Actually, humans are closer relatives to a rat than a kangaroo. A lot closer. Placentals are on an entirely different branch of mammalia than marsupials.

Are you done with the gravy?

You want some for that cooked goose? :-D

Barbarian observes:
In a sense, it is. So are we. We just moved on a little farther. There are fossil fish that look a lot more like land animals than tadpoles do.

You were a single cell and a wiggle sperm not too long ago. I don’t think you could say you were ever either a fish or a tadpole. I’m so glad I can just enjoy seeing my grandchildren scoop them up in jars and watching them turn into frogs and thank our great, incredible creator for making such an amazingly interesting, imaginative world for his pleasure and ours.

Well, that's consistent with Scripture, at least.

 

[unred typo]

The Barbarian wrote:

Much is made of the fact that scientists disagree on the details of evolutionary theory)

Nothing much at all was made of the fact that scientists disagree on the details of evolutionary theory but apparently this is a sore spot for you.



The Barbarian wrote:

So what was your point?

I didn’t say it was right or wrong to have disagreements, just that you should realize that not everyone is going to keep up with the latest or the many variations.


The Barbarian wrote:

Well, that certainly has a better tone than your first statement.

You shouldn’t read your own feelings into my posts. You’re way too serious. :wink:


The Barbarian wrote:

Since it didn't say anything about the subject, the significance is pretty hard to see. Why not tell me what you think it says?

See below. Apparently you missed it again.



The Barbarian wrote:

God is not like the Wizard of Oz, pulling strings behind a curtain. He's a lot more powerful and intelligent than creationists are willing to admit.

LOL. You would have him twiddling his thumbs while cells spontaneously form feather bumps and take millions of accidental occurrences to put together the first lump of flesh for some great advance like a eyelid or ear lobe. That’s not powerful, that’s pathetic.



The Barbarian wrote:

Since He's omniscient, and knows about those things before they happen, why didn't He just set the system to handle those from the start?

Where does it say God knows things that haven‘t happened yet? He knows all that there is to know, but the future hasn’t happened yet. There is nothing to know. Not knowing what hasn’t happened is not a defect. He is NOW, the ever present, all knowing I AM, eternally existing in the present moment, not the past, not the future. It is in him, the eternal NOW, that we live and move and have our being. He knows everything he plans to do and he knows how to make his plans happen exactly as he wills them to, regardless of anything that can happen because he can control anything that he needs to in order to bring his will to pass.
Not knowing a free will decision is not being less than omniscient either. To give us freedom to choose, he has allowed us the ability to choose to not do his will. (That is not to say we have power to not do his will unless he allows it.)
He says he knows the end from the beginning but that doesn’t mean everything is predestined, just certain things that he has fore ordained to happen.




The Barbarian wrote:

In fact, He never said how long it took. Some things, He left for us to find out.

What part of six days didn’t you understand? He did give us a nice list of ages of sons and fathers that you can add up to give you a fairly decent time frame.



The Barbarian wrote:

But it does tell you not to invent new doctrines like that.

Chapter/verse?


The Barbarian wrote:

So are all works of literature. Just variations of words and lettes. How about checking out information theory to learn about why new genes are considered to be information.
Guys like Gitt try to work up their own "information theories", but when it comes to actually handling information, the telecommunications guys ignore them, and pick Shannon's theory. Why? It works.
If you claim information is the way Gitt says it should be, then new information is unnecessary for evolution. Rock and a hard place.

You can rearrange the whole alphabet and write a gazillion books with it but the whole point is that you won’t have made a single new letter. You can take the basic kinds that God created and rearrange their genetic codes and unless you add some alien genes, you still have just variations of the same kinds. Which makes me wonder if since you insist that all animals are just one kind, that maybe man messed with their genetics and crossed the kinds so they would not be pure. That is a possibility I guess.




The Barbarian wrote:

Yep. Biochemically, genetically, cytologically, you have more in common with E. coli, than things by which you differ. Life on Earth, in the real sense, is one kind.

Could be. Actually, now that I consider it again, it says God created each after their kinds but it doesn’t say they stayed that way. I’ll have to mull that over for a while and check it against scripture. As long as it doesn’t conflict, I’m happy. Nothing’s written in stone.




The Barbarian wrote:

Unfortunately intellectual curiosity is an uncommon thing.

Intellectual curiosities are quite common though. The ToE seems to have quite a following of them.




The Barbarian wrote:

Being a Christian, and knowing God says not to do it, I get concerned when people do it.

There is a perfect example of a new doctrine / unsupported addition to scripture. Where does it say not to do it? Do you have any scriptural reference for that?




The Barbarian wrote:

And to physicians, and agronomists and animal breeders, and drug companies, and.... (long list)

Let me clarify that. It amazes me that someone is paid to study bird to dinosaur evolution, not genetics, drugs, chemistry or legitimate sciences.



The Barbarian wrote:

You get to do that, and still have antibiotics, and new surgical techniques, and so on, because there are other people who think learning about living things is more fun than selling cars.

Studying living things, new surgical techniques, antibiotics, and other real scientific endeavors is not what I was talking about. I meant that studying the supposed evolution of extinct animals is a pretty dead end job.


The Barbarian wrote:

You want some for that cooked goose?

I don’t have any kangaroos or rats in my family tree. I can even eat goose knowing that it isn’t a distant cousin.



The Barbarian wrote:

Well, that's consistent with Scripture, at least.

When you show me something that I believe that actually conflicts with scripture, I’ll gladly consider it and if it proves out, change it.

 

[MrVersatile48]

Useful link..

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=11688

 

[MrVersatile48]

TIMELY 'DAILY LIGHT' HERE...

From http://www.crosswalk.com

Devotional

"Except Through Prayer"


"Devote yourselves to prayer '." (v.2)
-- For reading & meditation: Colossians 4:2-15

A single sentence written by the great John Wesley has helped me more than anything else to balance two great truths - the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man.

Here is the statement which Wesley made: "God does nothing redemptively in the world - except through prayer."

Permit me to put into my own words what I think he was saying: whenever God wants to bring His purposes to pass here on earth He does not act arbitrarily, but touches the hearts of praying people and then ushers in His purposes across the bridge of prayer.

God may be sovereign but He is not dictatorial or capricious. He can no more act against His nature and the principles He has established in the world than He could make a square circle or an aged infant.

There are some things impossible even for God, and acting independently of the principles of prayer is one of them. This is why prayer and revival are so inseparably linked. I know of no revival that is not connected in some way with powerful, believing, intercessory prayer.

This, then, is how I see God's sovereignty and man's responsibility being brought together in harmony: when God decides that in the interests of His people a spiritual revival is necessary,

He lays a burden of prayer upon the hearts of His children - it may only be comparatively few - so that their prayers become the bridge across which revival power flows.

Let Wesley's famous statement ring in your heart once again: "God does nothing redemptively in the world - except through prayer."

PRAYER:

O God, I see that Your purposes are not arbitrary or capricious but the expression of Your nature - a revelation of Yourself. Amid the splendour of Your majesty I feel a heartbeat - a heartbeat of love. Thank you, dear Father. Amen.

FURTHER STUDY:

2 Kings 19:1-37; Prov. 21:1; Ex.17:8-13; Rev.19:6

1. What caused Hezekiah to act as he did?

2. How did God show His sovereignty?


-------------------------------------------
For more devotional materials and books from Selwyn Hughes visit CWR Online Store at: http://www.cwrstore.org.uk

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
God is not like the Wizard of Oz, pulling strings behind a curtain. He's a lot more powerful and intelligent than creationists are willing to admit.

LOL. You would have him twiddling his thumbs

There are two different errors one can make. One is the deist, who thinks God wound up the universe, and walked away to let it run. The second is the anthropomorphizer who thinks God shoves the clouds around to make thunderstorms. And there is an entire spectrum of error in between.

while cells spontaneously form feather bumps

Not how it happened.

and take millions of accidental occurrences to put together the first lump of flesh for some great advance like a eyelid or ear lobe.

As Pope Benedict XIV observes, God is God, and can use contingency just as easily as He uses anything else for His purposes.

That’s not powerful, that’s pathetic.

It is powerful and wonderful beyond any "hey presto!" creator.

Barbarian observes:
Since He's omniscient, and knows about those things before they happen, why didn't He just set the system to handle those from the start?

Where does it say God knows things that haven‘t happened yet? He knows all that there is to know, but the future hasn’t happened yet. There is nothing to know. Not knowing what hasn’t happened is not a defect. He is NOW, the ever present, all knowing I AM, eternally existing in the present moment, not the past, not the future. It is in him, the eternal NOW, that we live and move and have our being. He knows everything he plans to do and he knows how to make his plans happen exactly as he wills them to, regardless of anything that can happen because he can control anything that he needs to in order to bring his will to pass.
Not knowing a free will decision is not being less than omniscient either. To give us freedom to choose, he has allowed us the ability to choose to not do his will. (That is not to say we have power to not do his will unless he allows it.)
He says he knows the end from the beginning but that doesn’t mean everything is predestined, just certain things that he has fore ordained to happen.

One of the consequences of omnipotence is omniscience. And God is beyond time, which means nothing to Him, and does not limit Him.

Barbarian Observes:
In fact, He never said how long it took. Some things, He left for us to find out.

What part of six days didn’t you understand?

If you let the text speak for itself, you will see that it is indeed absurd to suppose literal mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

He did give us a nice list of ages of sons and fathers that you can add up to give you a fairly decent time frame.

Unfortunately, there are errors, and sme are clearly figurative.

Barbarian observes:
But it does tell you not to invent new doctrines like that.

I'll see if I can find you the verse.

You can rearrange the whole alphabet and write a gazillion books with it but the whole point is that you won’t have made a single new letter.

But lots of new information, from which new things appear.

You can take the basic kinds that God created and rearrange their genetic codes and unless you add some alien genes, you still have just variations of the same kinds.

Not alien, mutated.

Which makes me wonder if since you insist that all animals are just one kind, that maybe man messed with their genetics and crossed the kinds so they would not be pure. That is a possibility I guess.

Seems odd to say God can't do what man can.

Barbarian observes:
Yep. Biochemically, genetically, cytologically, you have more in common with E. coli, than things by which you differ. Life on Earth, in the real sense, is one kind.

Could be. Actually, now that I consider it again, it says God created each after their kinds but it doesn’t say they stayed that way. I’ll have to mull that over for a while and check it against scripture. As long as it doesn’t conflict, I’m happy. Nothing’s written in stone.

You are difficult to handle; very resiliant. But I like that.