Posted on 02/03/2002 9:07:58 AM PST by Sabertooth
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Here's where I see the crux of the Creation vs. Evolution debate, and most appear to miss it: |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Forget possible transitional forms, stratigraphy, and radiological clocks... at some level, both Creationists and Evolutionists wander back to singularities and have to cope with the issue of spontaneous cause. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Creationists say "God."
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Evolutionists say "random spontaneous mutagenic speciation."
|
|||
Take your time before assuming you know what the thread is about. Check it out.
John 1:1-10
Collosians 1: 13-22
Hebrews 1 :1-13
and a few more that I can't think of right now. They seem quite clear to me that the Son is the actual agency through which God created the physical universe and all that is in it. There are theological reasons for this which I won't go into now.
But, please, read the passages for yourself and tell me if you agree that this is what they are saying.
Ahban
Why do they all have to be living at the same time? Couldn't they be introduced over a long time period, as in since the Cambrian explosion? I mean, if the genetic diversity is too great to have occured as the result of Intelligent Design then certainly it is therefore far too great to have occured by random chance. One of my biggest beefs with Macroevolution is that at its historical rate we should see an average of one new FAMILY of animals every 430 years or so.
As for the defintion, I don't want to quibble over the meaning of words. Still, the creation of two species by the loss of an intermediate population that could interbreed with both would fall under 'macro' by the definition above. Is that really a 'macro' event?
I'd define it as a new species (or above) arising through changes in the genetic code which result in an addition of genetic information leading to the appearance of at least one complex new structure. If evolution can't produce complex new structures, then it can't have produced all of the families of animals we observe in Earth's history.
Please note that I do not have much problem with plant evolution. For example, the text of Genesis does not seem to rule out the evolution of plants. The creation of the universe itself, the creation of life in the seas and on the wing, and the creation of man, do seem to require additional divine intervention by this account. The other events use a word that implies some intervention, but perhaps not a fiat miracle.
Interesting. It sure seems Paul thought so. But did Jesus himself ever say this?
Agree with the first sentence, though my blind guess would be "none of the above." Not sure the second one follows.
I'm not saying origins are necessarily relevant to evolution (though I tend to think they would be), but how can you rule out relevance?
Post the one I missed.
The problem with your explanation is that if science knows the question cannot be answered anyone that provides an answer to such a question is not a scientist but a charlatan. That is what Darwin is, a charlatan trying to promote atheism by creating a totally phony "science".
Sabertooth, you're saying that because the worms weren't taken to a beach in Massachusetts, but instead did their speciation in a vat, this invalidates the experiment??? Listen to yourself!This is a false dilemma. The point is the circumstance of the worms' living conditions did not change randomly and spontaneously. I don't need a scientist's finger.
Every speciation could well include a changed environment for the isolated population. That's where the natural selection comes in. The vat is a different environment than Long Beach. If the worms had instead migrated up to Oregon & speciated there, that would be a different environment too. Surely you're not really trying to lawyer that one away?
Oh, wait a second, I re-read your statement. You think the experiment is invalid because the scientists intervened, period! The scientists moved a sub-population of worms to another place, instead of the tide. Now I understand. OK. You're just playing devil's advocate, aren't you?
Your question, "how else would they have?" is my point... in the absence of knowing the mechanism for speciation, Evolutionists fall back too quickly on the explanation of "randomness."
To say that "random did it" because we can't think of a better explanation is no more compelling that to say "God did it."
And now you seem to be saying that it's not really random unless - what? - unless we see the mutation occur in the DNA itself??? The proper assumption is goddidit unless we see it happening on a DNA level! But of course, even if we did see the chromosome mis-copy itself before our very eyes under a microscope, you could come back & say we don't know why it mis-copied. The cause of the miscopy is simply unknown to us. (Hey, maybe it's the microscope. Yeah, that's it. The scientists interfered when they put the worm on the slide!)
Can't you see how unreasonable this line of reasoning is? Trust me: It's random. As obviously random as the fact that OJ killed Nicole.
I know that evolutionists like to make such assertions broadly, but I doubt that it is true. While it may be true that these animals lack the ability to create vitamin C while others can, it does not mean that it is the same mutation that causes this. The genes of different animals are quite different even when they are used for the same purpose. A great example of this is the genes that produce blood. The blood of different animals is not interchangeable at all which it would be if the animals had identical genes. The semen and ovums are also not interchangeable. This is true for almost every other system in the body.
Only to evolutionists. They cannot find any proof at all of macro-evolution so they rely in small changes in populations to support their theory. The examples of "evolution" are just examples of different characteristics that are already present in the species coming to the fore. We do not see green men because there is no such gene in the human species. We do see however all kinds of different characterisitcs among the species.
Macro-evolution, which is totally necessary to prove evolution, is the creation of completely new characteristics and systems which were not present in the species. This the evolutionists cannot show.
Jhn 8:57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
Jhn 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Jhn 8:59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
They weren't going to stone Jesus because he said he was older than Abraham, he had just said that he was the "I am" --- God.
BUT THEY ARE STILL WORMS!
That some animals cannot mate with others is not proof that new characteristics have arisen, only that something is different. We are all different from each other, and if we breed separately from other human beings the characteristics of the small group will change over those of the other group. We see this in the breeding of plants and animals, different characteristics become more pronounced. However, in almost all cases, this results in a decrease in the viability of the individuals, not in an increase in their viability.
It appears that from a naturalistic perspective, the only adequate explanation for the emergence of life is that there was a "supernatural" cause.
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him.
Ok, now you've heard that one.
Complete moving the goalposts. Quite appropriate on Superbowl Sunday. :-)"Macroevolution generally refers to events at the speciation level or above. "
Only to evolutionists. They cannot find any proof at all of macro-evolution so they rely in small changes in populations to support their theory. The examples of "evolution" are just examples of different characteristics that are already present in the species coming to the fore.
AHEM, COUGH, SPRAY, SET DOWN GLASS, WIPE
Ahhh, gore3000, you're back in fine form!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
