Creation vs. Evolution

[Greg Jennings]

ignorance is bliss, isn't it?

This should be AiG's official slogan

 

[Greg Jennings]

OK then look back on recent human history and population change. Point out the evolution in the documented human history of civilisations..

If I may jump in with a quick answer for you: The development of sickle cell in Africa as a response to the malarial parasite. There's one

 

[iouae]

If I may jump in with a quick answer for you: The development of sickle cell in Africa as a response to the malarial parasite. There's one

I am aware that the malaria protozoan cannot replicate in the sickle celled erythrocyte. So these feebler individuals survive in malarial areas. How is this different to black skin being better suited to hot African sun?

My argument is that God built diversity into humans, as with every organism. And that diversity helps us all find our niche. Finding our niche is not evolution.

Evolution has to prove a common ancestor, change from species to species, from Pre-cambrian to present.

 

[Greg Jennings]

I am aware that the malaria protozoan cannot replicate in the sickle celled erythrocyte. So these feebler individuals survive in malarial areas. How is this different to black skin being better suited to hot African sun?

My argument is that God built diversity into humans, as with every organism. And that diversity helps us all find our niche. Finding our niche is not evolution.

Evolution has to prove a common ancestor, change from species to species, from Pre-cambrian to present.

Okay. So you accept that animals change in response to environmental pressures, and that animals are uniquely suited to their environment. Wouldn't the logical thing to do be to connect the two?

 

[iouae]

Okay. So you accept that animals change in response to environmental pressures, and that animals are uniquely suited to their environment. Wouldn't the logical thing to do be to connect the two?

Evolution looked at these two and then went crazy.

It claimed a common ancestor and UNLIMITED change, even the ability to morph from Phylum to Phylum.

I think evolution lost this game in the Cambrian, when most major Phyla and many Classes seemed to arise at the same time, negating the idea of gradual morphing from simplest Phyla to most complex ones.

 

[Greg Jennings]

l

I think evolution lost this game in the Cambrian, when most major Phyla and many Classes seemed to arise at the same time, negating the idea of gradual morphing from simplest Phyla to most complex ones.

That followed an extinction event. It caused not just a population bottleneck, but a bottleneck for all of life. I'm afraid you're misinformed on the Cambrian explosion, friend. I'd suggest a little light research on a .gov or .edu site

 

[gcthomas]

It claimed a common ancestor and UNLIMITED change, even the ability to morph from Phylum to Phylum.

Phylum to Phylum morphing? That I'd love to see. Who exactly claimed that?

 

[iouae]

Phylum to Phylum morphing? That I'd love to see. Who exactly claimed that?

Sorry I lack the patience to explain everything in micro detail.

If you cannot figure that Ev. teaches that organisms morph THROUGH STAGES from Phylum to Phylum, and want to act slow, then I see little future for this discussion.

Likewise you advice I need to do a little research - assume you are dealing with someone who has done a little research and address the issues.

 

[gcthomas]

Sorry I lack the patience to explain everything in micro detail.

If you cannot figure that Ev. teaches that organisms morph THROUGH STAGES from Phylum to Phylum, and want to act slow, then I see little future for this discussion.

Likewise you advice I need to do a little research - assume you are dealing with someone who has done a little research and address the issues.

I DO assume you have done little research. Since evolution only allows evolution within a Phylum, maybe diverging into two related phyla, you are display of you claim that evolution allows lineages to change from one Phylum to another existing Phylum.

If you are claiming that then you are lying or are seriously misinformed. If not, then there is not disagreement. Are you claiming this?

{given your lack of patience, so simple yes or no will suffice}

 

[iouae]

I DO assume you have done little research. Since evolution only allows evolution within a Phylum, maybe diverging into two related phyla, you are display of you claim that evolution allows lineages to change from one Phylum to another existing Phylum.

If you are claiming that then you are lying or are seriously misinformed. If not, then there is not disagreement. Are you claiming this?

{given your lack of patience, so simple yes or no will suffice}

Now that I explained myself, try again explaining this...
"Evolution looked at these two and then went crazy.

It claimed a common ancestor and UNLIMITED change, even the ability to morph from Phylum to Phylum.

I think evolution lost this game in the Cambrian, when most major Phyla and many Classes seemed to arise at the same time, negating the idea of gradual morphing from simplest Phyla to most complex ones."

 

[Jose Fly]

iouae,

Again, I suggest that you take the time to study a bit of evolutionary biology before attempting to debate against it. All you're doing right now is making yourself look like the poster child for the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

 

[badp]

Funny. I don't remember that happening to me in undergrad as a biology major. Hmm...

On exams, did any students in your classes provide answers that were contrary to evolution?

 

[Jose Fly]

Yeah, I remember when I took geology and the professor kept pushing erosion on us. I objected, pointing out that geologists only believe in erosion to keep their cushy lifestyles...what with their luxury cars, mansions, and trophy wives. The professor kept pointing to things like little ditches and rivulets as "observed erosion", but I was too smart for that. "That's just the earth modifying itself via microerosion, as God designed it to", I'd say.

And sure 'nuff, that professor didn't like it. Every time I wrote in non-erosion answers like "God made it that way" and used terms like "divinely-designed modifications", he'd mark my answers wrong!

Erosionists....:chuckle:

 

[badp]

The professor kept pointing to things like little ditches and rivulets as "observed erosion", but I was too smart for that. "That's just the earth modifying itself via microerosion, as God designed it to", I'd say.

That's actually a really good analogy for Creationism, but you don't realize it.

If my professor had pointed out ditches as evidence of observed erosion, I would have told him he's a moron and all he needs to do is look at wind and rain. In fact, I might have even asked to conduct an experiment showing erosion happening.

Evolutionists point to variations and similarities as "evidence" of evolution. But they can't experimentally prove it, nor can they even get the fossil records to line up with the supposed "history."

Crazy times :wazzup:

 

[iouae]

iouae,

Again, I suggest that you take the time to study a bit of evolutionary biology before attempting to debate against it. All you're doing right now is making yourself look like the poster child for the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Creationists claim few animals left limited space of Ark, diversified and multiplied. We have first dibs on diversity and multiplication.

We disagree with unlimited diversification such that one kind changes to the next.

We reject a common ancestor.

We reject time and chance as the originator of life.

We see many Phyla and classes arising in the Cambrian explosion, and Eocene, contrary to evolutionary theory.

Population dynamics is happening as we speak, but its not evolution from kind to kind.

 

[Jose Fly]

That's actually a really good analogy for Creationism, but you don't realize it.

It is a good parody of creationists' silly little conspiracy theories.

In fact, I might have even asked to conduct an experiment showing erosion happening.

Kinda like the experiments we did where we watched and documented populations evolving.

Evolutionists point to variations and similarities as "evidence" of evolution. But they can't experimentally prove it, nor can they even get the fossil records to line up with the supposed "history."

Because "badp" said so on an internet forum, and we all know that's how scientific issues are settled.

Crazy times :wazzup:

Yeah, the word "crazy" does come to mind in discussions like this.

 

[Jose Fly]

Creationists claim few animals left limited space of Ark, diversified and multiplied. We have first dibs on diversity and multiplication.

Yeah, we know all about your religious beliefs. And I have no idea what relevance you think calling "dibs" has in science.

We disagree with unlimited diversification such that one kind changes to the next.

We reject a common ancestor.

We reject time and chance as the originator of life.

We see many Phyla and classes arising in the Cambrian explosion, and Eocene, contrary to evolutionary theory.

Population dynamics is happening as we speak, but its not evolution from kind to kind.

Like I said, we're all familiar with your religious beliefs. Thanks for sharing I guess.

 

[badp]

Kinda like the experiments we did where we watched and documented populations evolving.

No. What you've observed is descent with modification via natural selection. That is not evolution (common descent).

 

[Jose Fly]

No. What you've observed is descent with modification via natural selection. That is not evolution (common descent).

Because "badp" said so on an internet forum. Great. Should I call the papers, or will you? :chuckle:

 

[Greg Jennings]

On exams, did any students in your classes provide answers that were contrary to evolution?

If you count the questions about some of the examples of mistakes made by scientists when identifying what they believed to be a new species, yes absolutely