Rapid Adaptation

[Jose Fly]

God clearly states above that this world was FINISHED from the very foundation of creation. Therefore, if it was finished, then there can be no evolution.

6days just proved that wrong.

 

[everready]

6days just proved that wrong.

I'll have to assume you didn't understand the scriptural implications.

I Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

everready

 

[The Barbarian]

Everready explains why creationists cannot accept the way God creates living things:

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[The Barbarian]

We get two clear truths from the above verses. 1. If you believe in evolution, then you have to believe that this world CONTINUES to evolve throughout it's life.

Observably so. New species appear from time to time, old ones die off. God never said that the Earth and it's inhabitants would be frozen for all time.

And yet God clearly states above that this world was FINISHED from the very foundation of creation.

Well, let's take a look...

Genesis 1:31 And God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good. And the evening and morning were the sixth day.

"Finished" was your addition to make it fit your own desires.

Or we can do the second chapter, where it says He did it in one day:


Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth: [5] And every plant of the field before it sprung up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew: for the Lord God had not rained upon the earth; and there was not a man to till the earth.

But when He finished, there were no humans, no plants, no rain. So "finished"clearly doesn't mean what you'd like it to mean.

Therefore, if it was finished, then there can be no evolution.

Or any humans. Or plants. Or rain. But there's a problem with that...

 

[everready]

Observably so. New species appear from time to time, old ones die off. God never said that the Earth and it's inhabitants would be frozen for all time.



Well, let's take a look...

Genesis 1:31 And God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good. And the evening and morning were the sixth day.

"Finished" was your addition to make it fit your own desires.

Or we can do the second chapter, where it says He did it in one day:


Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth: [5] And every plant of the field before it sprung up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew: for the Lord God had not rained upon the earth; and there was not a man to till the earth.

But when He finished, there were no humans, no plants, no rain. So "finished"clearly doesn't mean what you'd like it to mean.



Or any humans. Or plants. Or rain. But there's a problem with that...

Yes there is a problem with that, you don't understand.

Isaiah 46:8 Remember this, and shew yourselves men: bring it again to mind, O ye transgressors.

9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,

10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

He's the Alpha and the Omega Barbarian.

everready

 

[The Barbarian]

(Barbarian checks the assumption that "finished" means "no more changes."

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth: [5] And every plant of the field before it sprung up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew: for the Lord God had not rained upon the earth; and there was not a man to till the earth.

Barbarian chuckles:
When He finished, there were no humans, no plants, no rain. So "finished"clearly doesn't mean what you'd like it to mean.

No humans. Or plants. Or rain. But there's a problem with that...

Yes there is a problem with that,

Of course. You claim that when He said He was finished, that meant no more changes. But as you see, there was still a lot of things missing that have been added since then. So your assumption is wrong, if God is telling us the truth.

you don't understand.

I understand. You don't like scripture the way it is, so you're making a few changes. You would do well to remember that He is God, and He decides how creation will be:

Isaiah 46:8 Remember this, and shew yourselves men: bring it again to mind, O ye transgressors.

9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,

10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

He's the Alpha and the Omega, and you would do well to remember that.

 

[everready]

(Barbarian checks the assumption that "finished" means "no more changes."

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth: [5] And every plant of the field before it sprung up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew: for the Lord God had not rained upon the earth; and there was not a man to till the earth.

Barbarian chuckles:
When He finished, there were no humans, no plants, no rain. So "finished"clearly doesn't mean what you'd like it to mean.

No humans. Or plants. Or rain. But there's a problem with that...



Of course. You claim that when He said He was finished, that meant no more changes. But as you see, there was still a lot of things missing that have been added since then. So your assumption is wrong, if God is telling us the truth.



I understand. You don't like scripture the way it is, so you're making a few changes. You would do well to remember that He is God, and He decides how creation will be:

Isaiah 46:8 Remember this, and shew yourselves men: bring it again to mind, O ye transgressors.

9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,

10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

He's the Alpha and the Omega, and you would do well to remember that.

And you would do well to believe it, in your mind science trumps Gods word. i used to think atheists were the only ones that required evidence from God, i was sadly mistaken.


everready

 

[The Barbarian]

And you would do well to believe it, in your mind science trumps Gods word.

In spite of your faulty mind-reading act, you were the one trying to change scripture. It's your word that you're following, not God's word.

i used to think atheists were the only ones that required evidence from God, i was sadly mistaken.

If you stopped trying to revise scripture, you wouldn't feel a need to require evidence from God. Why not just set your pride aside, and accept it His way?

 

[George Affleck]

Between us we've issued two challenges, neither of which you have even admitted exist.

Maybe one day you'll work up the courage. :chuckle:

Not to mention, Jose does not know what "exact opposite" means.

 

[6days]

Right, they evolve as the paper you cited in the OP states: Rapid phenotypic evolution during incipient speciation in a continental avian radiation

Populations evolving and speciating...two things Stripe insists don't happen. Guess you proved him wrong. Well done. :thumb:

Nope.....You are slightly misrepresenting Stripe.
He agrees that organisms can rapidly change as the articles in the OP says..... This fits the Biblical model of an intelligent Creator programming creatures to survive and adapt in various environments.

What Stripe, myself and other creationist reject is how evolutionists such as yourself use malleable pliable terms to try sell evolutionism.
The birds adapted to their environment... rapidly. That is observational science. That fits with the Biblical creationist model.

 

[6days]

And yet God clearly states above that this world was FINISHED from the very foundation of creation. Therefore, if it was finished, then there can be no evolution. The physical and biological laws that govern the natural world were also finished.

Absolutely! Creation was completed.
Ex. 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy

The other supporting verses you used were great also.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Absolutely! Creation was completed.
Ex. 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy

The other supporting verses you used were great also.

WOW!! This is some kind of Excellent Thread!! We're making some breakthroughs! So 6days, you are saying that the Lord God was done with the Creation after 6 days. I think I agree. That would mean that the Universe in it's vastness would be made already before man got to view it closer with a telescope. I'm sure that God knew we would get telescopes to check the Heaven out. But that means that the Creation is finished and done with back then and now, right? Sounds good to me, 6 days!!

To One Of 'Em!! {Naysayers}

Michael

:wave2: :thumb:

 

[Stripe]

Barbarian observes:
If creationism were true, it would be easy, since each species was supposed to be created separately.COLOR="DarkRed"]As the history of evolutionary thought developed from the 18th century on, various views aimed at reconciling the Abrahamic religions and Genesis with biology and other sciences developed in Western culture.[5] Those holding that species had been created separately (such as Philip Gosse in 1857) were generally called "advocates of creation" but were also called "creationists," as in private correspondence between Charles Darwin and his friends.[/COLORurl]https:/ /en.wikiped ia.org/wiki/Cre ationism[ /url]There's no point in you denying it. That's just how it is. The point is that the difficulty in defining "species" is a major problem for creationism. And that's been known from the start. Darwin noted the difficulty in defining any such term, and noted that it was a consequence of species evolving.

Fortunately, we do not have to rely on your nonsense, as "kinds" has been clearly defined.

Because they don't exist. If I'm wrong, show these alleged "challenges".

Evolutionists hate reading.

I think so. Stipe tries to stay as vague as he can, to avoid having to face debunking. I doubt if he'll ever come clean with you about what he meant, if he meant anything at all.

Clear and concise, in fact.

Sorry.

Nope.....You are slightly misrepresenting Stripe. He agrees that organisms can rapidly change as the articles in the OP says..... This fits the Biblical model of an intelligent Creator programming creatures to survive and adapt in various environments. What Stripe, myself and other creationist reject is how evolutionists such as yourself use malleable pliable terms to try sell evolutionism.
The birds adapted to their environment... rapidly. That is observational science. That fits with the Biblical creationist model.

Yip.

The evolutionary idea is that all things descended from a single ancestor population. The YEC position is that organisms are descended from distinct groups, called kinds.

The challenge is for the evolutionists to consider the evidence with regard to these competing assertions, something they want to avoid at all costs.

The evidence shows rapid diversification of organisms in response to their environments; eliminating any possibility that evolution is in play.

 

[Jonahdog]

The evidence shows rapid diversification of organisms in response to their environments; eliminating any possibility that evolution is in play.

Wrong.

 

[The Barbarian]

Stipe confabulates:

Fortunately, we do not have to rely on your nonsense, as "kinds" has been clearly defined.

Sounds unlikely. So far no creationist has ever been able to provide a testable defiinition of "kind." "Baraminologists" keep slamming up against the reality that anything they find acceptable as a definition of "kind" puts humans and apes in the same "kind."

But let's see what you've got. Testable, remember.

Barbarian observes:
I think so. Stipe tries to stay as vague as he can, to avoid having to face debunking. I doubt if he'll ever come clean with you about what he meant, if he meant anything at all.

Clear and concise, in fact.

If it was, you'd just say it and not keep hiding it from us.

6days makes a new doctrine:

Nope.....You are slightly misrepresenting Stripe. He agrees that organisms can rapidly change as the articles in the OP says..... This fits the Biblical model of an intelligent Creator programming creatures to survive and adapt in various environments.

Show us in the Bible where it says that organisms can change into something different, to adapt to new environments.

The birds adapted to their environment... rapidly.

Something not mentioned in scripture, but part of Darwinian theory.

It was the emergence of population thinking in evolution which forced many scientists to adopt gradualism in the early 20th century. According to Ernst Mayr, it wasn't until the development of population genetics in the neo-Darwinian synthesis in the 1940s that demonstrated the explanatory power of natural selection that saltational views of evolution were largely abandoned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltation_(biology)

And in recent years, new evidence, from observations of actual populations has led to scientists increasingly accepting the ideas of Huxley and other Darwinians that evolution can happen more rapidly than the gradualists thought.

That is observational science.

Yep.

That fits with the Biblical creationist model.

Nope.

The evolutionary idea is that all things descended from a single ancestor population. The YEC position is that organisms are descended from distinct groups, called kinds.

The problem for creationists is twofold. First, your new belief is unbiblical. No such thing in the Bible. The concept of "well, O.K. there's evolution, but not too much of it" isn't endorsed or rejected by the Bible.

The second is that any testable definition of "kind" that does what they want it to do, puts humans and other apes in the same "kind." Rock and a hard place.

The challenge is for the evolutionists to consider the evidence with regard to these competing assertions, something they want to avoid at all costs.

Evolutionists haven't investigated how likely it is that the world sits on the back of a giant turtle, either. For the same reason.

We understand that your new religious beliefs don't match up well with reality. We understand that you've made a huge concession in admitting that new species, genera, and families evolve.

But it still won't fit the facts.

The evidence shows rapid diversification of organisms in response to their environments; eliminating any possibility that evolution is in play.

Huxley thought that an evolving lineage might make rapid jumps, or saltations. As he wrote to Darwin just before publication of the Origin of Species, "You have loaded yourself with an unnecessary difficulty in adopting Natura non facit saltum [Nature does not make leaps] so unreservedly."

You've merely accepted Huxley's version of Darwinism. There has been, and continues to be arguments about how much the pacing of evolution varies. Darwin himself realized it would vary, and wrote about it in The Origin of Species.

Your story isn't the magic bullet you hoped it would be. Go find some evidence to support whatever beliefs you want to present as science, and you'll be ready to discuss it.

Rewriting history won't do anything for you.

 

[Jonahdog]

Nope.....You are slightly misrepresenting Stripe.
He agrees that organisms can rapidly change as the articles in the OP says..... This fits the Biblical model of an intelligent Creator programming creatures to survive and adapt in various environments.

What Stripe, myself and other creationist reject is how evolutionists such as yourself use malleable pliable terms to try sell evolutionism.
The birds adapted to their environment... rapidly. That is observational science. That fits with the Biblical creationist model.

Your Biblical creationist model requires every creature from the Ark "kinds" to have adapted in the last 4500 +/- years. And don't forget about plants from their kinds as well.
Do I have your model correctly?

 

[Stripe]

Stipe confabulatesunds unlikely. So far no creationist has ever been able to provide a testable defiinition of "kind." "Baraminologists" keep slamming up against the reality that anything they find acceptable as a definition of "kind" puts humans and apes in the same "kind."ut let's see what you've got. Testable, remember.arbarian observes:I think so. Stipe tries to stay as vague as he can, to avoid having to face debunking. I doubt if he'll ever come clean with you about what he meant, if he meant anything at all.If it was, you'd just say it and not keep hiding it from us.days makes a new doctrine:Show us in the Bible where it says that organisms can change into something different, to adapt to new environments.omething not mentioned in scripture, but part of Darwinian theory. l]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltation_%28biology%29[/urld in recent years, new evidence, from observations of actual populations has led to scientists increasingly accepting the ideas of Huxley and other Darwinians that evolution can happen more rapidly than the gradualists thought.Yep.Nope.he problem for creationists is twofold. First, your new belief is unbiblical. No such thing in the Bible. The concept of "well, O.K. there's evolution, but not too much of it" isn't endorsed or rejected by the Bible.he second is that any testable definition of "kind" that does what they want it to do, puts humans and other apes in the same "kind." Rock and a hard place.volutionists haven't investigated how likely it is that the world sits on the back of a giant turtle, either. For the same reason.We understand that your new religious beliefs don't match up well with reality. We understand that you've made a huge concession in admitting that new species, genera, and families evolve. But it still won't fit the facts. You've merely accepted Huxley's version of Darwinism. There has been, and continues to be arguments about how much the pacing of evolution varies. Darwin himself realized it would vary, and wrote about it in The Origin of Species.Your story isn't the magic bullet you hoped it would be. Go find some evidence to support whatever beliefs you want to present as science, and you'll be ready to discuss it.Rewriting history won't do anything for you.

Nope. Evidence, remember?

Evolutionists hate it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
So far no creationist has ever been able to provide a testable defiinition of "kind." "Baraminologists" keep slamming up against the reality that anything they find acceptable as a definition of "kind" puts humans and apes in the same "kind." But let's see what you've got. Testable, remember.

Stipe dodges:

Nope. Evidence, remember?

We all remember, Stipe. You aren't going to provide evidence for reasons everyone here understands.

Prediction: Stipe will never produce a testable definition of "kind", because there isn't one.

 

[George Affleck]

There is something fundamentally wrong with you. You have been absolutely unable to name a single thing creationism has contributed to science in the last half century, and now you act like you did name something, showing yet again that it's impossible to advocate creationism honestly.

Hey, I know What!!

Let's throw creationists out of our clubs and our schools, tell lies about the Bible and God, refuse to let creationists publish in any of our papers and refuse funding to any of them telling the public that only that which happens naturally can be considered science.

Then, after 50 years, let's challenge them to show what they have contributed lately. The general public is so naive they will assume we have a good point.

Ha ha - that outta do it!

 

[Jonahdog]

Hey, I know What!!

Let's throw creationists out of our clubs and our schools, tell lies about the Bible and God, refuse to let creationists publish in any of our papers and refuse funding to any of them telling the public that only that which happens naturally can be considered science.

Then, after 50 years, let's challenge them to show what they have contributed lately. The general public is so naive they will assume we have a good point.

Ha ha - that outta do it!

ah, the great global atheist conspiracy at work.