[_ Old Earth _] Five Pillars of Evolution Compared with Creation

[Guest]

The Institute for Creation Research now admits the evolution of new species, genera, and families.

The ICR has endorsed John Woodmorappe's Noah's Ark; a Feasibility Study."

Boy, talk about double talk....:roll:

Again, substantiate your claim.

In the sense that chemistry is a "baseless theory", because it assumes atoms exist, without making any statements about how they came to exist. And yet both chemistry and evolutionary theory give us successful and useful predictions for understanding the universe

No, chemistry has observable results, which are repeatable. Evolution does not. And what does Evolution purport to resolve, if it's not the origins of life?
With your definiton, we could start with "modern man", and then go from there.

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian cites the endorsement by the ICR of claims that new species, genera, and families evolve)

Boy, talk about double talk....
Again, substantiate your claim.

You could look it up yourself, but here:

Earlier studies have shown that the total number of animals in question are less than the millions the detractors envision. Noah was told to take two of each "kind" of animal on board, probably represented by today's "families" or "genera" rather than species. For instance, the dog "kind" includes many speciesâ€â€wolf, domestic dog, dingo, coyote, etc. Furthermore, most animal types are small, only a few dozen are large, making the average size something on the order of a cat. (John Woodmorappe's excellent book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, looks into this issue in depth.) The great majority of today's animals live in the sea and did not need to be on board.
http://www.icr.org/article/2465/

You don't know much about your own religion of creationism.

Barbarian on the notion that evolutionary theory is "baseless" because it doesn't explain how life begain:
In the sense that chemistry is a "baseless theory", because it assumes atoms exist, without making any statements about how they came to exist. And yet both chemistry and evolutionary theory give us successful and useful predictions for understanding the universe

(Sound of goalposts being frantically repositioned)

No, chemistry has observable results, which are repeatable.

So does evolution. We can, for example, make predictions about the fitness of new genetic strains, based on evolutionary theory. More often than not, agronomists are successful in this application. Antibiotic protocols are designed according to evolutionary theory, as are applications of pesticides in combination with other control methods. Evolutionary theory has made numerous successful predictions as to intermediates which were later found in the fossil record.

Even undergraduates regularly do experiments that confirm evolutionary theory.

And what does Evolution purport to resolve, if it's not the origins of life?

How populations change over time.

With your definiton, we could start with "modern man", and then go from there.

Possibly. We can, for example show a number of evolutionary events in modern humans that occured very recently. Would you like to learn about some of them?

 

[Barbarian]

ICR admits the evolution of new species, genera and families:
Earlier studies have shown that the total number of animals in question are less than the millions the detractors envision. Noah was told to take two of each "kind" of animal on board, probably represented by today's "families" or "genera" rather than species. For instance, the dog "kind" includes many speciesâ€â€wolf, domestic dog, dingo, coyote, etc. Furthermore, most animal types are small, only a few dozen are large, making the average size something on the order of a cat. (John Woodmorappe's excellent book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, looks into this issue in depth.) The great majority of today's animals live in the sea and did not need to be on board.
http://www.icr.org/article/2465/

So where's this part:

The Institute for Creation Research now admits the evolution of new species, genera, and families.

I put it in red for you.

All the author is talking about above, is built in variability in the genes of dogs and cats. Domesticated dogs were bred from wild dogs, as is the case with cats.

As the ICR points out the "built-in variation" allowed new species, genera, and families to evolve. They don't like to use the word, but that's what it is.

Again, your full of bologna.

Temper, temper. You should thank me. You learned something new about your religion. Creationism is a lot different than Christianity.

Barbarian on the accusation that evolution is a "baseless theory" because it does not say how life began:
In the sense that chemistry is a "baseless theory", because it assumes atoms exist, without making any statements about how they came to exist. And yet both chemistry and evolutionary theory give us successful and useful predictions for understanding the universe

(sound of goalposts being frantically repositioned)

No assuming when it comes to atoms...their observable.

But chemistry makes no claims about how atoms origionated. Nice try, but you need to be a little slicker than that, if you want to switch arguments.

But to substantiate evolution, you have to demonstrate, at the molecular level, how we got from here to here:

Nope. Evolution only assumes living things exist, and describes how they change. Again, you aren't quite slick enough to pull off that kind of trick.

Barbarian observes:
So does evolution. We can, for example, make predictions about the fitness of new genetic strains, based on evolutionary theory. More often than not, agronomists are successful in this application. Antibiotic protocols are designed according to evolutionary theory, as are applications of pesticides in combination with other control methods. Evolutionary theory has made numerous successful predictions as to intermediates which were later found in the fossil record.

Even undergraduates regularly do experiments that confirm evolutionary theory.

This is genetics not evolution.

Nope. Someone's taken advantage of you trust in them. Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency in a population over time.

And the fossil record is very, very much against evolution.

They had some fun with you on that one, too. The fossil record has repeatedly confirmed predictions of evolutionary theory. Would you like to learn about some of them?

Barbarian on evolution
How populations change over time.

[Wow!! What a lofty goal... [/quote]

Yep. One of the major problems of biology. Solved.

Sounds like marketing to me...not science.

Now, that's funny.

Let's take a look... evolutionary theory predicted that there must have been at one time, whales with functional legs. We have since found many fossils of such whales. And from time to time, vestigial hind legs are still found on whales.

Evolutionary theory predicts that birds and dinosaurs are very closely related. Recently a bit of hemoglobin from a T-rex bone was found to be immunologically most like that of birds.

Evolutionary theory predicted that careless use of antibiotics would lead to bacterial resistance. And that is also verified. Researchers now develope antibiotic protocols to slow the development of such resistance, and one is now using evolutionary theory to predict what forms future resistance might take.

Even engineering has been affected. Engineers are now using simulations that mimic natural selection to find solutions to problems that are too difficult to design. Turns out that evolution is a much more efficient process than design.

(links on request)

 

[Slevin]

Barbarian, why are you bothering with someone who puts as much time into his responses and thinking about what you are saying as he does into choosing which smilies to insert at the end of his sentences?

 

[Guest]

Barbarian, why are you bothering with someone who puts as much time into his responses and thinking about what you are saying as he does into choosing which smilies to insert at the end of his sentences?

:roll: ...why are you, silly?

 

[Judy]

Bible Thumpin Fool would you please stop insulting the other member here.
I think this topic can be discussed in a civil manner.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Bible Thumpin Fool would you please stop insulting the other member here.
I think this topic can be discussed in a civil manner.

No I won't. Sorry...lol!! Kick me off!!

Theses guys are talking smack about my Father in Heaven, and twisting His Word into lies. I'd rather get kicked off than treat these heathens with one shred of respect... sorry...

Well...bye...

Charlie

 

[jwu]

Charlie, do you realize that with that kind of behaviour you are doing militant atheists a great favour?

There is a reason why The Barbarian mistook your other account for a fake and called Poe's Law, after all.
And by the way, there is someone called "The Bible Thumper" on other forums who is quite suspect of being exactly such a militant atheist who wants to make Christians look bad, hence it's an understandable mistake.

 

[Barbarian]

Hey, a good result, after all. Troll-clearing is an art, not a science.