[_ Old Earth _] Evolution stopped after billions of years.

[lordkalvan]

Ring species do not show any species transforming to another.

And yet that seems to be the obvious inference. What is your alternative explanation for this phenomenon?

Obviously there are different species of monkeys but have you seen one in transformation to another species or apes in transformation to homo sapient.

I asked whether monkey species are related one to the other and, if they are, how you account for this. Evolutionary theory does not propose that an existing species will in some way 'transform' into another existing species.

And yes evolution teach bats came from mice.

Reference? But let's grant your claim that this is what evolutionary biology teaches. What evidence leads to this inference and what is your better account of the evidence that explains it in as satisfactory a manner?

And the point is you can not use a similarity like many evolutionist use to prove evolution. For instance they claimed the red panda and giant panda was related because similarity in skull shape teeth jaw bone and extra thumb but DNA test proved it to be wrong. You can't use similarity so how can they say in a fossil record because of a small similarity this is where the whale came from. Same thing they use with ape and men because of similarity. But we do not see anything in this so called process. Like I said mice in-between the transition to a bat.

Again, similarity alone is not necessarily sufficient evidence to arrive at definite conclusions about relatedness. I would be happy to see your reference regarding who claimed relatedness between red and giant pandas and why they did this. Your complaint seems to be founded on the observation that science progresses and is willing to modify ideas as new information and understanding emerges. Why do you have a problem with this?

I have not seen any species in a transformation to another.

How is what you have or haven't seen evidence that something may or may not occur?

It's just a hypothesis of what happened in the past by those that rejected God.

Evolutionary theory is not the preserve of atheists, as the work of Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins, amongst others, testifies.

 

[spartakis]

Well evolution denies that there was a literal Adam and Eve. Instead it teaches that the male and female evolved from an ape like state together.

It teaches that man came into existence from millions on years of suffering agony and death.

If you believe in theistic evolution it still denies what was stated previously and that death and suffering were the penalty of sin and teaches instead that they were created by God and were used as tools that view assaults God and makes him the author of evil.

It destroys the entire basis of salvation through the death of Christ. If death came before sin then it cannot be the wages of sin. If death is not the penalty of sin then Christ did not pay the penalty of our sins.
So no the Bible does not leave room for evolution, don't matter how you twist it.

For the bats.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-Did-Rats-Grow-Wings-and-Became-Bats-21804.shtml
There are more but don't feel like posting everything that comes up in a search. Mouse, mouse like rodent what ever you want to say.

As for the ring species, that is pretty simple and you should understand what my response is. The salamander are still salamanders, gulls still gulls and etc.... Proves and shows nothing.

Okay show me the details for a sea lion. Since some believe it came from a dog like creature others believe it came from a bear like creature. Which similarities do you follow.

Once again this is my point below of what we should see. Evolution is a slow process and we should not see all animals in the same state of the species. For instance a sea lion below

Ancestor A B C D E F G H I J K Sea lion

Do you see what I am saying. With over 200,000,000 fossils we only see what we consider the ancestor and the other species. We don't see the millions of fossils we should see of the change. Evolution did not happen over night so we should see this in the process of animals still, instead we see the same species in the same form. Where are the ABCDEFGHIJK.

And because a niche is filled is no reason for apes to stop evolving. Richard dawkins states the laws of nature are like a blind watch maker. How would it know when the niche is filled and for apes to stop evolving into humans? Don't make since.

Do you understand what would have to take place for ( you can pick which creature they say the whale came from, the one I listed from India is what I read) the animal to turn into a whale? The odds of the DNA change are 1/364 followed by 1,625 zeros. My reference for this is from a book I recommend Evolution the Grand Experiment.
Its calculated by taking the 9 huge body changes x 1 new protein each change x 100 Amio acids per change of protein x 3 letters of DNA for each new amio acid= 2700 DNA letters.

Once again the odds are 1/364 followed by 1,625 zeros.


You keep asking me if I would like to learn about this stuff like I am dumb to this topic. I have read many books from both side of the fence. I have took classes in both sides. I believe that evidence points to what God said.

Everything I get from Darwin I got from the origin of species, never even read anything on AiG about Darwin. Have only read a couple articles from AiG period, have bought books that they sell though. And most likely agree with what they state since I am a strict creationist.

And please stop calling evolution a fact, its only a hypothesis.
And I am not going on what I have seen personally but what man has seen and documented throughout history.

 

[Barbarian]

Well evolution denies that there was a literal Adam and Eve.

Nope. There is nothing in evolutionary theory that denies we could have all descended from a single pair of humans.

Instead it teaches that the male and female evolved from an ape like state together.

Nope.

It teaches that man came into existence from millions on years of suffering agony and death.

God could have made a world without suffering and evil, but He chose not to do that.

If you believe in theistic evolution it still denies what was stated previously and that death and suffering were the penalty of sin

Since Adam did not die physically the day he ate from the tree, we know the death God spoke of was not a physical one. So that's not a problem, either.

It destroys the entire basis of salvation through the death of Christ.

Only if you deny what God says in Genesis. For a Christian, there is no conflict, although some have been taught that man-made doctrine.

For the bats.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-D...ts-21804.shtml

They got it wrong. It's not a science site, it's someone's encyclopedia.

Since most bats eat insects, evolutionists have traditionally taught that bats evolved from primitive insectivores, as did shrews, moles, etc. Fruit-eaters merely modified their diet due to ecological pressures.

Then in the early '80s J. D. Smith (Smith pp. 347-365) suggested that megabats and microbats evolved separately, because there are many physiological differences between the two other than just size. Microbats have a complicated shoulder joint and a claw only on the thumb, for example, while megabats have a simple shoulder joint but a claw on both the thumb and first finger. Micros use echo-location, while macros mainly rely on their keen eyesight. Micro teeth are designed for prey, while mega teeth grind plant parts. Megabats can live only in the tropics, needing a year-round food supply; many microbats have the ability to hibernate through cold winters.

In 1986 Dr. John Pettigrew further proposed that flying foxes most closely resemble primates (Pettigrew p. 1), and that along with flying lemurs who also have their own order but don't actually fly, they share a common ancestor with the primates.

He based his conclusions on research that showed that primates have unique neural pathways in the brain, having to do with vision, and that these pathways were so unique that it was thought that they distinguish primates from non-primates. Dr. Pettigrew discovered that all flying foxes also have them, including the little blossom bat mentioned above, but that no microbats do. As the flying lemurs also have these pathways, he proposed that they are really all primates, sharing a common ancestor, and that powered flight in bats evolved a second time, later in evolutionary history, only coincidentally resembling that of microbats.

Since then, however, other researchers have challenged his "two-origins" idea (Gibbons p. 34). Studies with mitochondrial DNA have shown that all bats are closely related, and separate from primates. Also, there is a muscle complex in the wings of all bats that is different from birds and all gliding mammals.

http://www.creationism.org/batman/bats.htm

Ron Lyttle is a volunteer Animal Talker at the Oregon Zoo in Portland, specializing in bats from around the world. In fact, he is usually referred to by his colleagues and tourists as: Batman. He has written the article below, and has agreed to allow its inclusion on this web page. Ron is also an active member of DSA, Oregon's "Design Science Association" for the study of creation/evolution issues.

Myth 5: Bats are rodents.
Bats are no more related to rodents than humans are. Evolution studies show that bats are more closely related to primates than to rodents.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0204/feature7/online_extra.html

As for the ring species, that is pretty simple and you should understand what my response is. The salamander are still salamanders, gulls still gulls and etc.... Proves and shows nothing.

It's like saying humans and chimps are still anthropoid primates. And they are. But they are also evolved into different organisms.

Okay show me the details for a sea lion. Since some believe it came from a dog like creature others believe it came from a bear like creature. Which similarities do you follow.

Interestingly, they've found a very primitive seal, which was still able to move about on land well. The skull is more doglike than bearlike from what I can see, but I'll have to take a look. You have to remember that there were neither dogs nor bears at the time, only vaguely dog-bear kinds of mammals.

Do you see what I am saying. With over 200,000,000 fossils we only see what we consider the ancestor and the other species. We don't see the millions of fossils we should see of the change.

As you see, the first try comes up with a transitional. Let's try again. Pick something else.

And because a niche is filled is no reason for apes to stop evolving.

It just means it won't evolve into a human-like creature. We are far too well-fitted for something to evolve into our niche. It's well-documented that organisms don't evolve into closed niches.

Richard dawkins states the laws of nature are like a blind watch maker. How would it know when the niche is filled and for apes to stop evolving into humans?

Any population that began to change that way would be out-competed by a well-fitted population already occupying the niche. That's how it works.

Do you understand what would have to take place for ( you can pick which creature they say the whale came from, the one I listed from India is what I read) the animal to turn into a whale? The odds of the DNA change are 1/364 followed by 1,625 zeros.

Would be, if it was random. But it's not. Natural selection takes care of that.

BTW, the odds of you, given your great-great grandparents, are even smaller. And yet, here you are.

My reference for this is from a book I recommend Evolution the Grand Experiment.
Its calculated by taking the 9 huge body changes x 1 new protein each change x 100 Amio acids per change of protein x 3 letters of DNA for each new amio acid= 2700 DNA letters.

Once again the odds are 1/364 followed by 1,625 zeros.

Poor fellahs, they never heard about natural selection.

You keep asking me if I would like to learn about this stuff like I am dumb to this topic.

You don't know a lot of things about it. For example, the probability argument you just used. It's nothing to be ashamed about; all of us are ignorant of many things.

I have read many books from both side of the fence. I have took classes in both sides. I believe that evidence points to what God said.

Me too. But of course, I accept His word in Genesis as it is. No "life ex nihilo" for me.

I've spent a lifetime studying biology. And a lifetime following Him. You can believe it, there's no conflict.

And please stop calling evolution a fact, its only a hypothesis.

It's directly observed, like gravity. In fact, it's better established than gravity. We know why evolution works, but we still aren't sure why gravity works.

 

[spartakis]

Nope. There is nothing in evolutionary theory that denies we could have all descended from a single pair of humans.

Really
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution

Nope.

Really
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution

God could have made a world without suffering and evil, but He chose not to do that.

Actually he did do that, and for a perfect world we had to have free will, then Adam sinned against God and caused the curse of man.

Only if you deny what God says in Genesis. For a Christian, there is no conflict, although some have been taught that man-made doctrine.

Evolution denies Genesis, how could we have evolved from millions of years if God created us in 6 days?

For the bats.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-D...ts-21804.shtml

They got it wrong. It's not a science site, it's someone's encyclopedia.

Since most bats eat insects, evolutionists have traditionally taught that bats evolved from primitive insectivores, as did shrews, moles, etc. Fruit-eaters merely modified their diet due to ecological pressures.

Then in the early '80s J. D. Smith (Smith pp. 347-365) suggested that megabats and microbats evolved separately, because there are many physiological differences between the two other than just size. Microbats have a complicated shoulder joint and a claw only on the thumb, for example, while megabats have a simple shoulder joint but a claw on both the thumb and first finger. Micros use echo-location, while macros mainly rely on their keen eyesight. Micro teeth are designed for prey, while mega teeth grind plant parts. Megabats can live only in the tropics, needing a year-round food supply; many microbats have the ability to hibernate through cold winters.

In 1986 Dr. John Pettigrew further proposed that flying foxes most closely resemble primates (Pettigrew p. 1), and that along with flying lemurs who also have their own order but don't actually fly, they share a common ancestor with the primates.

He based his conclusions on research that showed that primates have unique neural pathways in the brain, having to do with vision, and that these pathways were so unique that it was thought that they distinguish primates from non-primates. Dr. Pettigrew discovered that all flying foxes also have them, including the little blossom bat mentioned above, but that no microbats do. As the flying lemurs also have these pathways, he proposed that they are really all primates, sharing a common ancestor, and that powered flight in bats evolved a second time, later in evolutionary history, only coincidentally resembling that of microbats.

Since then, however, other researchers have challenged his "two-origins" idea (Gibbons p. 34). Studies with mitochondrial DNA have shown that all bats are closely related, and separate from primates. Also, there is a muscle complex in the wings of all bats that is different from birds and all gliding mammals.

http://www.creationism.org/batman/bats.htm

Ron Lyttle is a volunteer Animal Talker at the Oregon Zoo in Portland, specializing in bats from around the world. In fact, he is usually referred to by his colleagues and tourists as: Batman. He has written the article below, and has agreed to allow its inclusion on this web page. Ron is also an active member of DSA, Oregon's "Design Science Association" for the study of creation/evolution issues.

Myth 5: Bats are rodents.
Bats are no more related to rodents than humans are. Evolution studies show that bats are more closely related to primates than to rodents.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0204/feature7/online_extra.html

1,000 bat fossils have been found and no ancestors. Even Dr. Nicholas Czaplewski says we don't have any none flying bats so we can't pull something out of a hat, and have no info on how they might of evolved.
Let me guess the niche is filled so the blind watch maker stopped evolving whatever animal scientist think evolved into bats.

It's like saying humans and chimps are still anthropoid primates. And they are. But they are also evolved into different organisms.

So you do believe humans evolved, but don't that compromise your other statement?

Interestingly, they've found a very primitive seal, which was still able to move about on land well. The skull is more doglike than bearlike from what I can see, but I'll have to take a look. You have to remember that there were neither dogs nor bears at the time, only vaguely dog-bear kinds of mammals.


As you see, the first try comes up with a transitional. Let's try again. Pick something else.

I said sea lions and did you see this seal move on land or someone you know? But didn't God create all in 6 days?

Pick something else lol. A bat.

It just means it won't evolve into a human-like creature. We are far too well-fitted for something to evolve into our niche. It's well-documented that organisms don't evolve into closed niches.

Ya would be easy to document nothing is evolving. What are they evolving into then? A new type human?

Any population that began to change that way would be out-competed by a well-fitted population already occupying the niche. That's how it works.

So your saying this blind watch maker as dawkins calls it stops apes in the wild from evolving because he see's we have too many humans, same with other species. Sounds like a way of saying evolution is not happening.

Would be, if it was random. But it's not. Natural selection takes care of that.

Natural selection is survival of the fittest, so it kills off the weaker animals not create new body parts and etc... Natural selection of artificial breading may remove a trait that is already present but never create new information in the DNA and new genes. It will not add fur flippers and etc...

BTW, the odds of you, given your great-great grandparents, are even smaller. And yet, here you are.

God knew me before I was born. Your confusing me on your beliefs?

Poor fellahs, they never heard about natural selection.

Know all about it.
Natural selection is survival of the fittest, so it kills off the weaker animals not create new body parts and etc... Natural selection of artificial breading may remove a trait that is already present but never create new information in the DNA and new genes. It will not add fur flippers and etc...

You don't know a lot of things about it. For example, the probability argument you just used. It's nothing to be ashamed about; all of us are ignorant of many things.

I am not ashamed of anything especially telling others the gospel and letting them know the creations view and the Bible is true. I could call you the same thing but I wont go there.

Since Adam did not die physically the day he ate from the tree, we know the death God spoke of was not a physical one. So that's not a problem, either.

Romans and other places talk about this. We could get into theology all day. Seeing you state you are a Roman Catholic. I am a Bible believing Baptist. We both have different beliefs for instance, I pray to the Father only through Christ, don't believe in purgatory, only confess my sin's to God himself as Jesus as my high priest and saviour, and don't think the pope is the vicar of Christ, and etc....

Me too. But of course, I accept His word in Genesis as it is. No "life ex nihilo" for me.

Can't tell. sounds like you believe everything evolved over millions of years. instead of being created in 6 days.

I've spent a lifetime studying biology. And a lifetime following Him. You can believe it, there's no conflict.

I don't get into anything I have not studied. I follow him also. That makes us brothers with disagreements.

It's directly observed, like gravity. In fact, it's better established than gravity. We know why evolution works, but we still aren't sure why gravity works.

Really I have been waiting for someone to show me something in the process, I have giving multiple tries.

 

[lordkalvan]

...1,000 bat fossils have been found and no ancestors. Even Dr. Nicholas Czaplewski says we don't have any none flying bats so we can't pull something out of a hat, and have no info on how they might of evolved.

You seem to want to have it both ways: if bats lack an identified ancestral line, you parade this as a failing of evolutionary theory sufficient to discredit it, yet when an identified ancestral line is identified for whales, for example, you simply deny that it is any such thing. Seems to me that you aren't really interested in the merits of evidence at all.

Let me guess the niche is filled so the blind watch maker stopped evolving whatever animal scientist think evolved into bats....

I can't make out what you mean here. Whatever species of animal gave rise to bats may also have given rise to other species as well.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Nope. There is nothing in evolutionary theory that denies we could have all descended from a single pair of humans.

Really
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...uman_evolution

Yep. Nothing there denies that humans could have descended from a single pair.

Barbarian observes:
God could have made a world without suffering and evil, but He chose not to do that.

Actually he did do that, and for a perfect world we had to have free will, then Adam sinned against God and caused the curse of man.

The curse of man didn't cause nature. The curse was a spiritual one, that removed man from God. That is why we needed a Savior.

Barbarian observes:
Only if you deny what God says in Genesis. For a Christian, there is no conflict, although some have been taught that man-made doctrine.

Evolution denies Genesis, how could we have evolved from millions of years if God created us in 6 days?

From the start, Christians have realized that the six days could not be literal ones. As St. Augustine pointed out, it's absurd to have literal mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them.

For the bats.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-D...ts-21804.shtml

Barbarian chuckles:
They got it wrong. It's not a science site, it's someone's encyclopedia.

Since most bats eat insects, evolutionists have traditionally taught that bats evolved from primitive insectivores, as did shrews, moles, etc. Fruit-eaters merely modified their diet due to ecological pressures.

Then in the early '80s J. D. Smith (Smith pp. 347-365) suggested that megabats and microbats evolved separately, because there are many physiological differences between the two other than just size. Microbats have a complicated shoulder joint and a claw only on the thumb, for example, while megabats have a simple shoulder joint but a claw on both the thumb and first finger. Micros use echo-location, while macros mainly rely on their keen eyesight. Micro teeth are designed for prey, while mega teeth grind plant parts. Megabats can live only in the tropics, needing a year-round food supply; many microbats have the ability to hibernate through cold winters.

In 1986 Dr. John Pettigrew further proposed that flying foxes most closely resemble primates (Pettigrew p. 1), and that along with flying lemurs who also have their own order but don't actually fly, they share a common ancestor with the primates.

He based his conclusions on research that showed that primates have unique neural pathways in the brain, having to do with vision, and that these pathways were so unique that it was thought that they distinguish primates from non-primates. Dr. Pettigrew discovered that all flying foxes also have them, including the little blossom bat mentioned above, but that no microbats do. As the flying lemurs also have these pathways, he proposed that they are really all primates, sharing a common ancestor, and that powered flight in bats evolved a second time, later in evolutionary history, only coincidentally resembling that of microbats.

Since then, however, other researchers have challenged his "two-origins" idea (Gibbons p. 34). Studies with mitochondrial DNA have shown that all bats are closely related, and separate from primates. Also, there is a muscle complex in the wings of all bats that is different from birds and all gliding mammals.

http://www.creationism.org/batman/bats.htm

Ron Lyttle is a volunteer Animal Talker at the Oregon Zoo in Portland, specializing in bats from around the world. In fact, he is usually referred to by his colleagues and tourists as: Batman. He has written the article below, and has agreed to allow its inclusion on this web page. Ron is also an active member of DSA, Oregon's "Design Science Association" for the study of creation/evolution issues.

Myth 5: Bats are rodents.
Bats are no more related to rodents than humans are. Evolution studies show that bats are more closely related to primates than to rodents.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ng...ine_extra.html

1,000 bat fossils have been found

Not very many, and all recent. Bats are quite delicate, so they don't fossilize very well. And they live where fossils don't commonly form.

Let me guess the niche is filled so the blind watch maker stopped evolving whatever animal scientist think evolved into bats.

In New Zealand and Australia, bats became more terrestrial because a niche for a small ground-dwelling mammal was open.

Barbarian chuckles:
It's like saying humans and chimps are still anthropoid primates. And they are. But they are also evolved into different organisms.

So you do believe humans evolved, but don't that compromise your other statement?

Right. If you thought about it a bit, I bet you could figure out why.

Barbarian on transitional pinnipeds:
Interestingly, they've found a very primitive seal, which was still able to move about on land well. The skull is more doglike than bearlike from what I can see, but I'll have to take a look. You have to remember that there were neither dogs nor bears at the time, only vaguely dog-bear kinds of mammals.

As you see, the first try comes up with a transitional. Let's try again. Pick something else.

I said sea lions

Sea lions are somewhat more like this transitional than seal are. I thought you knew.

and did you see this seal move on land

It has functional legs. So it sound like a pretty good bet that it walked.

But didn't God create all in 6 days?

If we can believe the Bible, not six literal days.

Barbarian observes:
It just means it won't evolve into a human-like creature. We are far too well-fitted for something to evolve into our niche. It's well-documented that organisms don't evolve into closed niches.

Ya would be easy to document nothing is evolving. What are they evolving into then? A new type human?

New type of ape.

Barbarian observes:
Any population that began to change that way would be out-competed by a well-fitted population already occupying the niche. That's how it works.

So your saying this blind watch maker as dawkins calls it stops apes in the wild from evolving because he see's we have too many humans, same with other species.

I don't know what you're talking about. Natural selection prevents a population from moving into an occupied niche.

Sounds like a way of saying evolution is not happening.

According to evolutionary theory, a well-fitted population in a stable environment will be prevented from changing by natural selection. It's called "stabilizing selection."

Barbarian observes:
Would be, if it was random. But it's not. Natural selection takes care of that.

Natural selection is survival of the fittest, so it kills off the weaker animals not create new body parts and etc...

Natural selection only makes new things by modifying what is already there.

Natural selection of artificial breading may remove a trait that is already present but never create new information in the DNA and new genes.

You've been misled about that. Any new mutation in a population will add information. Would you like to see the numbers?

Barbarian observes:
BTW, the odds of you, given your great-great grandparents, are even smaller. And yet, here you are.

God knew me before I was born.

But my statement is nevertheless true.

Barbarian chuckles:
Poor fellahs, they never heard about natural selection.

Know all about it.

Nope. Their calculations fail to consider that natural selection determines which mutations get to go on to the next generation. Would you like a simple demonstration as to why they messed up?

Barbarian observes:
You don't know a lot of things about it. For example, the probability argument you just used. It's nothing to be ashamed about; all of us are ignorant of many things.

I am not ashamed of anything especially telling others the gospel and letting them know the creations view and the Bible is true.

Me too. But some people have added things to the Bible, and told you they are God's word. That's a problem.

Barbarian observes:
Since Adam did not die physically the day he ate from the tree, we know the death God spoke of was not a physical one. So that's not a problem, either.
Romans and other places talk about this. We could get into theology all day.

Seeing you state you are a Roman Catholic. I am a Bible believing Baptist.

If you believed the Bible and only what it says, you wouldn't be a YE creationist.

We both have different beliefs for instance, I pray to the Father only through Christ, don't believe in purgatory, only confess my sin's to God himself as Jesus as my high priest and saviour, and don't think the pope is the vicar of Christ, and etc....

You can still be saved, if you do as He says in Matthew 25.

Me too. But of course, I accept His word in Genesis as it is. No "life ex nihilo" for me.

Can't tell. sounds like you believe everything evolved over millions of years. instead of being created in 6 days.

YE creationism is a very modern belief, invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists.

Barbarian observes:
I've spent a lifetime studying biology. And a lifetime following Him. You can believe it, there's no conflict.

I don't get into anything I have not studied. I follow him also. That makes us brothers with disagreements.

Yep.

 

[spartakis]

Barbarian observes:
Nope. There is nothing in evolutionary theory that denies we could have all descended from a single pair of humans.



Yep. Nothing there denies that humans could have descended from a single pair.

Barbarian observes:
God could have made a world without suffering and evil, but He chose not to do that.



The curse of man didn't cause nature. The curse was a spiritual one, that removed man from God. That is why we needed a Savior.

Barbarian observes:
Only if you deny what God says in Genesis. For a Christian, there is no conflict, although some have been taught that man-made doctrine.



From the start, Christians have realized that the six days could not be literal ones. As St. Augustine pointed out, it's absurd to have literal mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them.



Barbarian chuckles:
They got it wrong. It's not a science site, it's someone's encyclopedia.

Since most bats eat insects, evolutionists have traditionally taught that bats evolved from primitive insectivores, as did shrews, moles, etc. Fruit-eaters merely modified their diet due to ecological pressures.

Then in the early '80s J. D. Smith (Smith pp. 347-365) suggested that megabats and microbats evolved separately, because there are many physiological differences between the two other than just size. Microbats have a complicated shoulder joint and a claw only on the thumb, for example, while megabats have a simple shoulder joint but a claw on both the thumb and first finger. Micros use echo-location, while macros mainly rely on their keen eyesight. Micro teeth are designed for prey, while mega teeth grind plant parts. Megabats can live only in the tropics, needing a year-round food supply; many microbats have the ability to hibernate through cold winters.

In 1986 Dr. John Pettigrew further proposed that flying foxes most closely resemble primates (Pettigrew p. 1), and that along with flying lemurs who also have their own order but don't actually fly, they share a common ancestor with the primates.

He based his conclusions on research that showed that primates have unique neural pathways in the brain, having to do with vision, and that these pathways were so unique that it was thought that they distinguish primates from non-primates. Dr. Pettigrew discovered that all flying foxes also have them, including the little blossom bat mentioned above, but that no microbats do. As the flying lemurs also have these pathways, he proposed that they are really all primates, sharing a common ancestor, and that powered flight in bats evolved a second time, later in evolutionary history, only coincidentally resembling that of microbats.

Since then, however, other researchers have challenged his "two-origins" idea (Gibbons p. 34). Studies with mitochondrial DNA have shown that all bats are closely related, and separate from primates. Also, there is a muscle complex in the wings of all bats that is different from birds and all gliding mammals.

http://www.creationism.org/batman/bats.htm

Ron Lyttle is a volunteer Animal Talker at the Oregon Zoo in Portland, specializing in bats from around the world. In fact, he is usually referred to by his colleagues and tourists as: Batman. He has written the article below, and has agreed to allow its inclusion on this web page. Ron is also an active member of DSA, Oregon's "Design Science Association" for the study of creation/evolution issues.


http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ng...ine_extra.html



Not very many, and all recent. Bats are quite delicate, so they don't fossilize very well. And they live where fossils don't commonly form.



In New Zealand and Australia, bats became more terrestrial because a niche for a small ground-dwelling mammal was open.

Barbarian chuckles:
It's like saying humans and chimps are still anthropoid primates. And they are. But they are also evolved into different organisms.



Right. If you thought about it a bit, I bet you could figure out why.

Barbarian on transitional pinnipeds:
Interestingly, they've found a very primitive seal, which was still able to move about on land well. The skull is more doglike than bearlike from what I can see, but I'll have to take a look. You have to remember that there were neither dogs nor bears at the time, only vaguely dog-bear kinds of mammals.

As you see, the first try comes up with a transitional. Let's try again. Pick something else.



Sea lions are somewhat more like this transitional than seal are. I thought you knew.



It has functional legs. So it sound like a pretty good bet that it walked.



If we can believe the Bible, not six literal days.

Barbarian observes:
It just means it won't evolve into a human-like creature. We are far too well-fitted for something to evolve into our niche. It's well-documented that organisms don't evolve into closed niches.



New type of ape.

Barbarian observes:
Any population that began to change that way would be out-competed by a well-fitted population already occupying the niche. That's how it works.



I don't know what you're talking about. Natural selection prevents a population from moving into an occupied niche.



According to evolutionary theory, a well-fitted population in a stable environment will be prevented from changing by natural selection. It's called "stabilizing selection."

Barbarian observes:
Would be, if it was random. But it's not. Natural selection takes care of that.



Natural selection only makes new things by modifying what is already there.



You've been misled about that. Any new mutation in a population will add information. Would you like to see the numbers?

Barbarian observes:
BTW, the odds of you, given your great-great grandparents, are even smaller. And yet, here you are.



But my statement is nevertheless true.

Barbarian chuckles:
Poor fellahs, they never heard about natural selection.



Nope. Their calculations fail to consider that natural selection determines which mutations get to go on to the next generation. Would you like a simple demonstration as to why they messed up?

Barbarian observes:
You don't know a lot of things about it. For example, the probability argument you just used. It's nothing to be ashamed about; all of us are ignorant of many things.



Me too. But some people have added things to the Bible, and told you they are God's word. That's a problem.

Barbarian observes:
Since Adam did not die physically the day he ate from the tree, we know the death God spoke of was not a physical one. So that's not a problem, either.
Romans and other places talk about this. We could get into theology all day.



If you believed the Bible and only what it says, you wouldn't be a YE creationist.



You can still be saved, if you do as He says in Matthew 25.

Me too. But of course, I accept His word in Genesis as it is. No "life ex nihilo" for me.



YE creationism is a very modern belief, invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists.

Barbarian observes:
I've spent a lifetime studying biology. And a lifetime following Him. You can believe it, there's no conflict.



Yep.

Your arguments don't really stand. The Bible teaches God created all in 6 days. Yes literal days. The curse had an effect on nature you should try and restudy Genesis. You should know all the problems with the gap theory and day age theory and etc... If not let me know I will share them with you when I get home. Does evolution not say we are
Evolved apes? I believe it does but your statements of what you believe in evolution and the Bible keep contradicting themselves. Maybe you can explain what you believe and why Biblically and in evolution it might help your contradictions and loopholes you are trying to use to get out of them.

 

[stovebolts]

YE creationism is a very modern belief, invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists.

What? :help

Ummm... hate to tell you this, but it is only modern evangelical Christians that try to turn the hebrew word for Day into age and try to fit the creation account into an evolutionary perspective. Any Hebrew scholar will tell you that the word day in Genesis 1 is a literal day.

Smatter of fact, when a Jew reads the words, "Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness" they understood that to mean in the image of earth (soil) and the image of God (spirit). Thus the words of Solomon, Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

 

[Free]

The Bible teaches God created all in 6 days. Yes literal days.

Not necessarily.

The curse had an effect on nature you should try and restudy Genesis.

What effect is that?

You should know all the problems with the gap theory and day age theory and etc...

And yet, those theories have one significant advantage over 6 literal days: they line up with what science tells us about the age of the Earth. There is no need to presume what the Bible says regarding creation and then reject science.

Ummm... hate to tell you this, but it is only modern evangelical Christians that try to turn the hebrew word for Day into age and try to fit the creation account into an evolutionary perspective.

Barbarian has posted before of those theologians long ago who believed in an old Earth.

Any Hebrew scholar will tell you that the word day in Genesis 1 is a literal day.

Would they?

http://www.torahtimes.org/The Genesis defintion of Day.htm

Hos 6:1 "Come, let us return to the LORD; for he has torn us, that he may heal us; he has struck us down, and he will bind us up.
Hos 6:2 After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.

Is the above speaking of three literal days? Why or why not?

And even if it is the case of six literal days, it doesn't mean the Earth isn't very, very old. It seems as though there is a lot more going on in the creation accounts than most YECists either realize or care to admit.

http://paulcopan.com/articles/pdf/revised-genesis-science.pdf

Or how about this one:

http://www.truebiblecode.com/understanding234.html :eeeekkk

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
YE creationism is a very modern belief, invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists.

What?

YE creationism is based on the visions of an Adventist prophetess, and spread to some evangelicals by George McCready Price, an Adventist missionary.

Ummm... hate to tell you this, but it is only modern evangelical Christians that try to turn the hebrew word for Day into age and try to fit the creation account into an evolutionary perspective.

Let's take a look...

In the 2d verse of the first chapter of Genesis, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.†We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, wherein man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator gave up the world to confusion. He allowed the inward fires to burst up from beneath, and melt all the solid matter, so that all kinds of substances were commingled in one vast mass of disorder.
Baptist leader Charles Spurgeon, The Power of the Holy Ghost
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0030.htm

Any Hebrew scholar will tell you that the word day in Genesis 1 is a literal day.

In fact, many, many Hebrew scholars have pointed out that it cannot be interpreted that way. Philo of Alexandria, for example, made it clear that Genesis could not be literal. His concept of logos is the same as that of the Christian church, although there is disagreement over whether he influenced Christian theology or if he and Christians are drawing from a common source. Maimonides rejected an allegorical Genesis, as did Nahmanides, two of the most respected of Medieval Jewish theologians. Today, belief in a literal Genesis is rare among Jewish believers outside of strict orthodox sects.

Your arguments don't really stand.

They have for nearly 2000 years.

The Bible teaches God created all in 6 days. Yes literal days.

The Bible doesn't say so.

The curse had an effect on nature you should try and restudy Genesis.

The Bible doesn't say so.

You should know all the problems with the gap theory and day age theory and etc... If not let me know I will share them with you when I get home.

Gap theory and day age theory, and YE creationism are all modern revisions of Genesis.

Does evolution not say we are Evolved apes?

The evidence does.

I believe it does but your statements of what you believe in evolution and the Bible keep contradicting themselves.

Nope. Only the modern revision of the Adventists does.

Maybe you can explain what you believe and why Biblically and in evolution it might help your contradictions and loopholes you are trying to use to get out of them.

I believe the Bible, which has no contradictions with evolutionary theory. Some forms of creationism do not contradict the Bible either. But YE creationism is not consistent with God's word in Genesis.

 

[Pard]

YE creationism is a very modern belief, invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists.

Ian Observes:

You're wrong. You are speaking of the revival movement in the 1920s by George Price. If you have been told that he created the whole idea then you've been lied to, and I pray you didn't pay for that lie!

Now onto Spurgeon. He lived in a period of time when YE views were in decline, I know not why, but I'd assume it had to do with science things becoming more common and people heard that the earth is wicked old and they were like, "hmmm, we should alter our view to fit this!"

Well I hate to break it to you but the oldest dating Jewish commentary speaks of a young earth. Seder Olam Rabbah speaks of literal days and calculates the date the earth was made based on the genealogies (first recorded use of them for this purpose by the way).

And skip ahead to some of the famous Christian commentators (Luther, Calvin) they were both of the young earth view. So were all these other even older Christian commentators like Hippo.Augustine didn't view it this way, but he was in the minority...

Probably my only post here since I have no clue what you guys are talking about, I just wanted to correct an error that I saw.

 

[spartakis]

Ian Observes:

You're wrong. You are speaking of the revival movement in the 1920s by George Price. If you have been told that he created the whole idea then you've been lied to, and I pray you didn't pay for that lie!

Now onto Spurgeon. He lived in a period of time when YE views were in decline, I know not why, but I'd assume it had to do with science things becoming more common and people heard that the earth is wicked old and they were like, "hmmm, we should alter our view to fit this!"

Well I hate to break it to you but the oldest dating Jewish commentary speaks of a young earth. Seder Olam Rabbah speaks of literal days and calculates the date the earth was made based on the genealogies (first recorded use of them for this purpose by the way).

And skip ahead to some of the famous Christian commentators (Luther, Calvin) they were both of the young earth view. So were all these other even older Christian commentators like Hippo.Augustine didn't view it this way, but he was in the minority...

Probably my only post here since I have no clue what you guys are talking about, I just wanted to correct an error that I saw.

Thanks for explaining that saved me some time

Barbarian you claim to believe the Bible but you believe we came from apes you do not believe Genesis or do not understand it. God created man and beast on different days. And
It is. Literal days. You and many others twist the word of God to try and fit the hypothesis of evolution.

As for the curse having an effect on nature
Genesis 3:17-19 KJV

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

But maybe you can twist that for the hypothesis.

Back to the original topic if you believe evolution show me a living proof of a species changing into another type of kind.

Found a short video to explain what I am saying but since it don't agree with you it will probably be wrong.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop_uri=/watch?v=fDYxUHtYB4g&v=fDYxUHtYB4g&gl=US

Yes it's AiG

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
YE creationism is a very modern belief, invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists.

You're wrong. You are speaking of the revival movement in the 1920s by George Price.

It's very well documented:
Price's defense of creation science (and attacks on evolution) first achieved wide notability in 1925 when his theories and arguments were utilized heavily by William Jennings Bryan in the famous Scopes Trial. Bryan had appealed to Price for assistance, but Price was busy teaching in England. Price advised Bryan to avoid science during the trial if possible.[14] During the trial, defense counsel Clarence Darrow, sneered "You mentioned Price because he is the only human being in the world so far as you know that signs his name as a geologist that believes like you do . . . every scientist in this country knows [he] is a mountebank and a pretender and not a geologist at all."[14]

Price's ideas were borrowed again in the early 1960s by Henry M. Morris and John Whitcomb in their book The Genesis Flood, a work that skeptic Martin Gardner calls "the most significant attack on evolution...since the Scopes trial". Morris, in his 1984 book History of Modern Creationism, spoke glowingly of Price's logic and writing style, and referred to reading The New Geology as "a life-changing experience for me".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_McCready_Price

Morris, as you might know, was the leader of the largest evangelical creationist organization, the Institute for Creation Research. The details, with documentation, can be found in Ronald Numbers' The Creationists.

If you have been told that he created the whole idea then you've been lied to, and I pray you didn't pay for that lie!

Facts are facts, whether you want to ignore them or not. YE creationism is a religious belief no older than the last century.

Now onto Spurgeon. He lived in a period of time when YE views were in decline, I know not why, but I'd assume it had to do with science things becoming more common and people heard that the earth is wicked old and they were like, "hmmm, we should alter our view to fit this!"

Spurgeon was a dedicated Baptist minister who spoke out on many controversial topics. He didn't object to the evidence, because there was nothing in evangelical thinking to make him object. Only later, after Ellen G. White, the Adventist "prophetess" had visions of creation that was later fashioned into YE creationism, did it make any inroads into evangelical Christianity. The creationism presented at the Scopes Trial, for example, was the traditional, old Earth form.

Any Hebrew scholar will tell you that the word day in Genesis 1 is a literal day.

As you learned, many ancient and modern Hebrew scholars see the days of Genesis as literal.

And skip ahead to some of the famous Christian commentators (Luther, Calvin) they were both of the young earth view.

Calvin insisted the Scriptures required the Earth to be at the center of the solar system. So did Luther. And Luther advocated lying if it was for a useful purpose. So that's not really very helpful to you, is it?

So were all these other even older Christian commentators like Hippo.Augustine didn't view it this way, but he was in the minority...

In fact, Augustine and others like him carried the day. Augustine is the most respected ancient theologian in the Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox denominations.

Probably my only post here since I have no clue what you guys are talking about, I just wanted to correct an error that I saw.

Stick around. There's a lot more you'll be seeing for the first time.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian you claim to believe the Bible

I accept all of it, without reservation. YE creationists accept some of it, but not all of it.

but you believe we came from apes you do not believe Genesis or do not understand it.

It's a common error creationists make. God says that like the other animals, humans were from the earth, but then He directly gave us a living soul, and that is what made us different.

God created man and beast on different days. And
It is. Literal days.

As many Christians have pointed out, trying to make them literal days results in logical absurdities like mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them.

You and many others twist the word of God to try and fit the hypothesis of evolution.

I'm just accepting it as it is. Those who try to add YE ideas are the ones changing it.

As for the curse having an effect on nature
Genesis 3:17-19 KJV

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

It merely says that man has ceased to be immortal, and will live out his life as the other animals. Nature was always thus; God had a place for Adam and Eve in a garden apart from that. That is why the Bible doesn't mention Him changing the world. He merely had them driven from the Garden.

Back to the original topic if you believe evolution show me a living proof of a species changing into another type of kind.

O. gigas from O. lamarkania, by a polyploidy event.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1601-5223.1936.tb03204.x/pdf

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1966 April; 55(4): 727–733
Spontaneous origin of an incipient species in the Drosophila paulistorum complex.
T Dobzhansky and O Pavlovsky

Found a short video to explain what I am saying but since it don't agree with you it will probably be wrong.

If you want to tell me what you found most convincing, I'd be happy to respond to it. I don't use You Tube videos and I don't watch them pro or con regarding evolution. Mostly propaganda by the ignorant on both sides.

And since AIG has been caught altering the words of scientists to make it appear that they believe things they do not, you best verify anything they tell you independently.

 

[spartakis]

I accept all of it, without reservation. YE creationists accept some of it, but not all of it.

Really? You believe whales evolved except God made them on the 4th day with all other sea life. You don't believe he crated the earth in 6 days ( I will get to that in a second ). You believe men evolved from apes instead of being made in Gods image, instead we were made as apes with the beast.

Do you believe in the flood? I am going to assume no, but correct me if I am wrong. You do not believe the book of Genesis pretty much and want to twist it so it seems like you do. Don't work. I believe you do this because you know what Jesus says so you don't want to just say you reject Genesis, but that it fits you beliefs but it don't

John 5:46-47 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

I am sure you will twist it but sums it up pretty well.

It's a common error creationists make. God says that like the other animals, humans were from the earth, but then He directly gave us a living soul, and that is what made us different.

Really I thought he said he created us in his image. I guess you can try and twist that. But don't hold up.

As many Christians have pointed out, trying to make them literal days results in logical absurdities like mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them.



I'm just accepting it as it is. Those who try to add YE ideas are the ones changing it.

No actually you are making it fit your beliefs.
Goes back a long time
Young Earth creationism was still the dominant view during the Early Modern Period (1500–1800) and is found typically referenced in the works of famous poets and playwrights of the era including Shakespeare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

The Hebrew word for day is yom and this word appears in Scriptures over 1400 times. And without exception this word,
http://www.abarim-publications.com/YomProblem.html#.T6JRmeg7Xko

It merely says that man has ceased to be immortal, and will live out his life as the other animals. Nature was always thus; God had a place for Adam and Eve in a garden apart from that. That is why the Bible doesn't mention Him changing the world. He merely had them driven from the Garden.

But I thought we got here from millions of years of death and suffering from apes. And it was not physical death, your previous statements are once again contradicting. It does mention womens pain at birth, thornes and etc... but whatever you can twist it you like other points still very serious.

url]http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1601-5223.1936.tb03204.x/pdf[/url]

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1966 April; 55(4): 727–733
Spontaneous origin of an incipient species in the Drosophila paulistorum complex.
T Dobzhansky and O PavlovskyO. gigas from O. lamarkania, by a polyploidy event.

sorry I don't download nothing you can explain it if you would like.

If you want to tell me what you found most convincing, I'd be happy to respond to it. I don't use You Tube videos and I don't watch them pro or con regarding evolution. Mostly propaganda by the ignorant on both sides.

And since AIG has been caught altering the words of scientists to make it appear that they believe things they do not, you best verify anything they tell you independently.

Well basically what I have been saying, life does not come from nothing. Animals can not add thousands of DNA letters to produce fins and evolve into something greater. Changes in its own kind is different. Species change but never out of its kind adding DNA letters. Natural selection never changes one kind to another. Mutations only change one letter of DNA out of billions and to think mutations of thousands of letters in perfect order is how we got here is not logical.

So please show me where an animal of today changed its kind ape to man frog to prince, rodant to bat, dear like animal to whale and so on.
God Bless

 

[wayseer]

Do you believe in the flood? I am going to assume no, but correct me if I am wrong. You do not believe the book of Genesis pretty much and want to twist it so it seems like you do. Don't work. I believe you do this because you know what Jesus says so you don't want to just say you reject Genesis, but that it fits you beliefs but it don't

Taking the biblical texts literally creates all sorts of problems which inevitable leads you to reject anyone who reads the Bible differently to you. All you are doing is giving us your opinion. Interesting as that may be it is not theology and hence has little to do with God.

Similarly, you play fast and loose with science.

Life can be traced to back to exploding stars to which our mortal bodies will inevitable return.

Denial is never good science nor good theology.

 

[Classik]

Interesting perspectives! hehe haha hoho

We all came from the same source, 'dust'. Is that all about this Darwolution thing? :D

 

[spartakis]

Taking the biblical texts literally creates all sorts of problems which inevitable leads you to reject anyone who reads the Bible differently to you. All you are doing is giving us your opinion. Interesting as that may be it is not theology and hence has little to do with God.

Similarly, you play fast and loose with science.

Life can be traced to back to exploding stars to which our mortal bodies will inevitable return.

Denial is never good science nor good theology.

So takeing the Bible literally has nothing to do with God?
When you stop taking the Bible literally and start compromising is when it creates problems. To think the whole Bible is a parable. Is a problem.
and I don't reject science there's plenty of science for the ye creation view point that does not contradict the word of God.
And if someone had proof instead of a hypothesis of evolution you would have more to stand on. Feel free to answer my original and last question any proof feel free. By the way where did all that energy and exploding stars come from? I know what evolution believes and teaches and its not logical. Watch that video I posted if you can watch YouTube it might help you see what i am getting at.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I accept all of it, without reservation. YE creationists accept some of it, but not all of it.

Really?

Yep. I accept that living things were brought forth by the earth, but YE creationists cling to "life ex nihilo."

You believe whales evolved except God made them on the 4th day with all other sea life.

Remember, I accept it as it is. Christians have always known that much of Genesis is not meant to be literal history.

You don't believe he crated the earth in 6 days

As ancient Christians wrote, it's absurd to imagine literal mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them.

You believe men evolved from apes instead of being made in Gods image,

Jesus says God is a spirit and spirit has no body. God doesn't have fingers or a nose or eyelids. The "image" is in God's spirit and mind.

instead we were made as apes with the beast.

If you accept the Bible, you acknowledge that we came from the Earth like all the rest, but then God gives each of us a spirit and soul directly.

Do you believe in the flood?

There may have been an actual flood. There was a great flood in the Middle East, about the right time. But there wasn't a worldwide flood and the the Bible doesn't say there was one.

I am going to assume no, but correct me if I am wrong. You do not believe the book of Genesis pretty much

As you see, I accept it as it is. YE adds new doctrines to the Bible, which is not wise.

John 5:46-47 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Barbarian observes:
It's a common error creationists make. God says that like the other animals, humans were from the earth, but then He directly gave us a living soul, and that is what made us different.

Really I thought he said he created us in his image.

See above. The "image" is not what you want it to be, according to Jesus.

I guess you can try and twist that.

Jesus says God is a spirit. He says a spirit has no body. If you think that's "twisting", then we'll have to disagree.

Barbarian observes:
As many Christians have pointed out, trying to make them literal days results in logical absurdities like mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them.

The Hebrew word for day is yom and this word appears in Scriptures over 1400 times. And without exception this word, when written in the singular sense, means day. And that's it.
http://www.abarim-publications.com/Y...l#.T6JRmeg7Xko

You've been misled:
from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), [often used adv.]:--age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, end, evening, (for)ever(lasting), ever(more), full, life, as long as (...live), even now, old, outlived, perpetually, presently, remaineth, required, season, since, space, then, (process of) time, as at other times, in trouble, weather (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), whole (age), (full) year (-ly), younger

As you can see, Hebrew dictionaries attest to the fact that the word Yom is used for anywhere from 12 hours up to a year, and even a vague "time period" of unspecified length.
http://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.htm

Barbarian observes:
It merely says that man has ceased to be immortal, and will live out his life as the other animals. Nature was always thus; God had a place for Adam and Eve in a garden apart from that. That is why the Bible doesn't mention Him changing the world. He merely had them driven from the Garden.

But I thought we got here from millions of years of death and suffering from apes.

God chose two people to be different. Our bodies evolved, but our souls are quite different.

And it was not physical death, your previous statements are once again contradicting. It does mention womens pain at birth, thornes and etc... but whatever you can twist it you like other points still very serious.

Adam was always mortal. Indeed, in Genesis, God expresses concern that he might become immortal, and expells him from the Garden into the world which was filled with death and suffering.

(Barbarian cites evolution of a new species)
Spontaneous origin of an incipient species in the Drosophila paulistorum complex.
T Dobzhansky and O PavlovskyO. gigas from O. lamarkania, by a polyploidy event.

sorry I don't download nothing you can explain it if you would like.

It describes the observed evolution of a new species from an old one.

Barbarian suggests:
If you want to tell me what you found most convincing, I'd be happy to respond to it. I don't use You Tube videos and I don't watch them pro or con regarding evolution. Mostly propaganda by the ignorant on both sides.

And since AIG has been caught altering the words of scientists to make it appear that they believe things they do not, you best verify anything they tell you independently.

Well basically what I have been saying, life does not come from nothing.

God says it comes from the earth. You should believe Him.

Animals can not add thousands of DNA letters to produce fins and evolve into something greater.

Really? Show us tha.

Changes in its own kind is different. Species change but never out of its kind adding DNA letters.

DNA isn't letters. And the evolution of new features is directly observed.

Natural selection never changes one kind to another.

Give us a testable definition of "kind."

Mutations only change one letter of DNA out of billions and to think mutations of thousands of letters in perfect order is how we got here is not logical.

More precisely, it's a strawman, a story made up by creationists. It's not in evolutionary theory.

So please show me where an animal of today changed its kind ape to man frog to prince, rodant to bat, dear like animal to whale and so on.

So you don't believe that a giant redwood can grow from a seed, because no one's ever lived long enough to see it happen? Do you really think that will convince anyone?

Barbarian observes:
God Bless accept all of it, without reservation. YE creationists accept some of it, but not all of it.

Really?

Yep.

 

[lordkalvan]

So takeing the Bible literally has nothing to do with God?

Why should it? Where does God tell us that the Bible has to be taken literally according to what one particular sect tells us that literalness must mean?

When you stop taking the Bible literally and start compromising is when it creates problems. To think the whole Bible is a parable. Is a problem.

Why do you suppose the choice is either/or? Clearly, the Bible contains some more or less accurate history, but it also includes morality tales and parables.

...and I don't reject science there's plenty of science for the ye creation view point that does not contradict the word of God.

Which science is that, then? And again can I point out that you are only asserting that your interpretation amounts to 'the word of God.' given that you are a fallible human being, just like those who wrote the Bible, can you explain why your fallible interpretation of other fallible humans' claims to be recounting the word of God should be understood as authoritative?

And if someone had proof instead of a hypothesis of evolution you would have more to stand on. Feel free to answer my original and last question any proof feel free.

there's plenty of evidence supporting the fact of evolution and the soundness of evolutionary theory. Where would you like to start?

By the way where did all that energy and exploding stars come from?

As best we can infer, from the Big Bang singularity.

I know what evolution believes and teaches and its not logical.

Why is it not logical? What is illogical about the evolutionary algorithm - modify, if successful repeat, otherwise discard?

Watch that video I posted if you can watch YouTube it might help you see what i am getting at.

Looks like a series of assertions and not-so-subtle misrepresentations to me, such as the 'no new information' canard. Put simply, natural selection feeds new information into the gene pool of successor generations, as demonstrated by, for example, Lenski's experiments with E.coli bacteria and such phenomena in the human beings as different blood types and the sickle cell mutation.