Conquer Club

King D. ... my web is so sticky ... it was easy to get Mets into it but now Woodruff has crawled in and, if you take a look at the AZ vs. IA thread, even Player is now snuggling in to join them!

At first it was funny they didn't get "it" but now it's just getting me a little depressed at humanity that they keep lining up to hop into the sausage slicer.

I made a boo-boo. This has become an out-of-control train headed at full speed down a track toward a bridge that's collapsed. But even I don't know how to stop it now!

Metsfanmax wrote: You're assuming that because genetic change is a cause for evolution, evolution is the same thing as genetic change. This is a fallacy because there are many other potential causes for evolution of a species (assuming that we agree, to some extent, that evolution means a change in a species over time). For example, a freak natural disaster could kill all members of a species except ones with a particular set of genes which have no relation to the species' ability to survive the disaster - for example, an earthquake occurs and just by chance, only humans with blue eyes survive. Extremely unlikely example, I know, but it serves the point: genetic change may be a cause for evolution, but evolution is not necessarily caused by genetic change.

I wouldn't call genocide evolution.
The branching off is what I would call evolution.
What lives and what does not only determines how far evolution of a particular branch goes.

Metsfanmax wrote:Few, if any, call it evolution when the offspring of an organism has a gene mutation not present in its parents' genes; the reason is that it's quite possible that the offspring in question may die before it reproduces, thus leading to no overall change in the structure of the population.

Evolution does not necessarily mean advancement.
All species die out at one point.
Though it would be a waste of time classifying a particular offspring that died off before reproducing, it is still evolution.

Metsfanmax wrote:Another reason is that in general, biologists are not able to determine whether gene mutations have occurred, unless they cause the development of traits which can be distinguished from the rest of the population. Thus it would be inane to say that every genetic mutation causes evolution, because many genetic mutations cause absolutely no observable effects, so we'd never know if we were correctly keeping track of them all.

Yes, genetic change can be very small.
That is not reason enough to say there is not evolution present.
What I am getting at is that most think that evolution involves large scale X and large scale Y.
I'm looking at what causes large scale X and large scale Y.
It just so happens that those small changes cause the large changes.
Large changes just take more time.
Does that mean that small changes are not evolution?
f*ck no!

saxitoxin wrote: I made a boo-boo. This has become an out-of-control train headed at full speed down a track toward a bridge that's collapsed. But even I don't know how to stop it now!

Sure you do. But being the troll that you are, you won't. That's ok...a lot of folks enjoy laughing at trolls.

Woodruff wrote:

saxitoxin wrote: I made a boo-boo. This has become an out-of-control train headed at full speed down a track toward a bridge that's collapsed. But even I don't know how to stop it now!

Sure you do. But being the troll that you are, you won't. That's ok...a lot of folks enjoy laughing at trolls.

...and thats the trouble with tribbles.

saxitoxin wrote:I made a boo-boo. This has become an out-of-control train headed at full speed down a track toward a bridge that's collapsed. But even I don't know how to stop it now!

You engage the flux capacitor and move the train to the point in time where the bridge is repaired.

I thought everyone knew that!

Oh, go and reconfigure your array.

AAFitz,

What do you claim goes against Genesis?

And what would you consider to be evidence for earth having been instantly created out of nothing?

Queen,

Dinosaurs are referred to several places in the so called Old Testament including Genesis 1:21 maybe.

There might not be much of a debate in regards to whether or not creatures have brought forth variety, but is there one and only one genetic family tree on earth?

Player,

What do physics and aerodynamics have to do with whether or not there's universal common descent on an earthwide scale?

Thread,

What in terms of scientific evidence suggests He didn't instantly create earth out of nothing?

Creatures very much do bring forth variety as a result of mutations and natural selection perhaps, but what suggests there's universal common descent across earth if a) famous evolutionists have made it clear that they didn't think the fossil record backed that up and b) similarities can be viewed as evidence for common ancestry or a common designer?

Lionz wrote: Player,

What do physics and aerodynamics have to do with whether or not there's universal common descent on an earthwide scale?

Not sure. Why do you even ask?

Lionz wrote: Thread,

What in terms of scientific evidence suggests He didn't instantly create earth out of nothing?

Nothing. He did. He just did not create Adam and Eve from nothing (nor does the Bible claim he did). And, he almost certainly used known geomorphic processes to create the landforms (not what young earther's propose.. that is plain impossible, sorry) and evolution to create the whole divirsity.(again, the young earth postulations are absolutely impossible).

If you mean why young earthers are wrong the evidence includes, but is not limited to: The entire fossil record, Geologic layers, Plate Techtonics, biology, genetic studies, the wide diversity of life and its distribution, archeological evidence, chemical analysis, etc, etc, etc.

Lionz wrote:Creatures very much do bring forth variety as a result of mutations and natural selection perhaps, but what suggests there's universal common descent across earth if a) famous evolutionists have made it clear that they didn't think the fossil record backed that up

Evolution is NOT predicated on one universal common descent for every creature. That the animals we see now have descended from earlier types that go well beyond what young earthers like to call "kinds" is firmly proven in the fossil evidence. As for what "a famous evolutionist said" A. you would have to show of whom you are speaking and give what he actually said, not just the highly edited stuff found in young earth sites. (Too often, they utterly distort what people say.) B. Famous or not, he might be wrong. C. Evolution is NOT predictated upon (does not depend upon) there being one universal descent. This has been explained to you many, many times..and no, it is not "just a matter of definition" (note, the "no perhaps"). The young earth sites that try to bring up this garbage are meeting their own ends, not telling full truths.

Lionz wrote:and b) similarities can be viewed as evidence for common ancestry or a common designer?

Cooincidence, lack of proof, whatever you wish... Alone, (that is strictly looking at the similarities) it is explained equally by both theories (plus a few others) and therefore is NOT evidence.

However, while the basic similarity seen today might (not really, but ..t hat takes more explanation that I wish to get into now anyway), be explained by both, the fossil evidence, genetic evidence, etc is NOT explained at all, in fact very much disproves the young earth ideas.

The physics and aerodynamics question or whatever is at least partially in response to a post of you found here maybe...

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 5#p2676019

What exactly do you claim is plain impossible?

Is there anything not resting on a critical assumption that suggests earth was created over 6,000 years ago?

Would assuming that earth randomly came together from a random distribution of dust particles over billions of years not be a faulty assumption if He intelligently designed and created diamond filled earth out of nothing? How illogical would it be to assume earth was or was not created instantly out of nothing if you were trying to determine if it was in the first place?

Would studying the fossil record while assuming that there's not been an earthwide flood not be a faulty assumption if there has been an earthwide flood and it resulted in fossil filled sedimentary rock scattered across the earth?

Would assuming that continents have spread away from one another at a constant pace be a false assumption if the flood resulted in a rapid seperation of land masses?

Would assuming that there's always been a constant amount of carbon 14 produced in the atmosphere not be a faulty assumption if the earth had a vastly different atmosphere and 30 times more plantlife on it less than 5,000 years ago? And is there any radiometic dating technique that does not assume a starting number in something and assume there's been a constant rate of decay in something?

What do young earthers like to call kinds? Maybe that's simply used to refer to original created kinds and you won't find a young earth creationist claiming to know how many original created kinds there were. There might have been ten... there might have been a few hundred... who knows?

I might have said stuff wrong. Maybe I'm sure of what little to no one has clearly suggested, but is there a misquote here or a quote out of context here? http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 6#p2618196

Did Gould not say the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology regardless of whether or not he's gotten frustrated about a creationist using words of him to support creationism?

Do you mean to claim that fossil evidence and genetic evidence disprove young earth ideas? Can you elaborate? Even if two creatures have 99% similar DNA, does that necessarily mean that they share common ancestry with one another?

Lionz wrote:And what would you consider to be evidence for earth having been instantly created out of nothing?

Where do you find creatio ex nihilo in Genesis?

Lionz wrote:Dinosaurs are referred to several places in the so called Old Testament including Genesis 1:21 maybe.

For those of us who don't own a bible, do you think you could just give us a quick quote of that?

I'm genuinely interested to see what's on offer here.

King Doctor wrote:

Lionz wrote:Dinosaurs are referred to several places in the so called Old Testament including Genesis 1:21 maybe.

For those of us who don't own a bible, do you think you could just give us a quick quote of that?

I'm genuinely interested to see what's on offer here.

Sure, why not?

Genesis 1:21 wrote:God created the great sea monsters and all kinds of swimming creatures with which the water teems, and all kinds of winged birds. God saw how good it was,

You know I can't see the T-Rex even remotely implied in this line. No sir, not at all.

The seas and the sky are populated on the fifth day; they are the rullers of the sea and sky, created on the second day, just as the sun and the moon (created on the fourth day) as well as the stars are the rullers of the heavens which was created on the first day.

Land creatures were not needed until the rullers of the land were created on the fifth day; that would be Genesis 1:24

Genesis 1:24 wrote:Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth all kinds of living creatures: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals of all kinds." And so it happened:

I was thumbing through an old Discover Magazine and came across this little snippet in a part of the monthly '20 things you didn't know about ___':

Discover Magazine wrote:3. In 1998, researchers found a new mosquito species in the London Underground, descended from ancestors that flew in when the tunnels were dug 100 years ago. Once bird-feeders, they now feast on a menu of rats, mice, and people.

4 . They rarely interbreed with their aboveground colleagues. Their DNA actually varies from one subway line to another.

London Times Article
The 1998 Journal Article/Study


--Andy

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

THORNHEART wrote:Wow recently everyday seems a new thing shows up....

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/st ... s/19545186

Science continues to prove it doesnt have a clue what really went on back in " the days"

My favourite part is this quote

The finding, which will be published in Thursday's edition of Nature, is the latest to show that scientists have perpetually underestimated the humans who lived thousands and millions of years ago. Accumulating evidence shows, for example, that Neanderthals were not the stupid brutes of public image but beings capable of symbolic thought.

"We are still stuck in this Victorian image (that) the further you go back in time, the more primitive it has to be," says paleoanthropologist Wil Roebroeks of Leiden University. "The evidence is constantly showing us wrong."
Early Humans Were Tough

Agree with the above posters. You fall into the classic trap of thinking that all you have to do is find any criticism at all of evolutionary theory to make room for your theory. It just doesn't work that way. You have to actually prove your own theory might be true.

The unfortunate part is that in this case, the OP didn't even find any criticism of evolutionary theory. Only criticism of archaeologists and anthropologists.

Except, that is the kind of "evidence" ICR uses frequently.

In truth, here is how they will see this:

To them, evolution is dependent upon the idea that ALL previous forms MUST be inferior to all later forms. Sometimes they even refer to "complexity" or such. So, to them anything that shows that things perhaps did not evolve as quickly or even reversed is considered "proof" that evolution fails.

It is just one more example of why the Institute for Creation Research depends upon MISunderstanding evolution to put forward their ideas, why it is absolutely critical that kids be taught real science and not this fakery.

yes i agree that children must be taught truth. but i'm not sure if we mean the same thing..... and yes i understand evolution perfectly i know that it contridects the bible. peiriod.

So should we teach that pi = 3?

wercool wrote:and yes i understand evolution perfectly i know that it contridects the bible. peiriod.

The only way the Bible contradicts evolution is if you believe that everything in the Bible is literally true. Do you honestly believe that?

eccept some stuff in revelation that he didn't have a literall name for.also when it says that its fictional(ie. when jesus says that he's telling a parable.)other then that yes.

wercool wrote: yes i agree that children must be taught truth. but i'm not sure if we mean the same thing..... and yes i understand evolution perfectly i know that it contridects the bible. peiriod.

Except it doesn't.

Woodruff wrote:

wercool wrote:and yes i understand evolution perfectly i know that it contridects the bible. peiriod.

The only way the Bible contradicts evolution is if you believe that everything in the Bible is literally true. Do you honestly believe that?

Actually, even then it does not contradict evolution.

wercool wrote:eccept some stuff in revelation that he didn't have a literall name for.also when it says that its fictional(ie. when jesus says that he's telling a parable.)other then that yes.

So then you believe that the parts in Genesis where it talks about creation that it literally took place within "a 24-hour period" for God to create each of those items. You believe that EVEN WHEN THERE WAS NO CONCEPT SUCH AS TIME, that time was still measured?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

wercool wrote:and yes i understand evolution perfectly i know that it contridects the bible. peiriod.

The only way the Bible contradicts evolution is if you believe that everything in the Bible is literally true. Do you honestly believe that?

Actually, even then it does not contradict evolution.

Sure it does, unless you believe the evolution up to man took less than a week.

This thread= Crappy Birthday Present for me when it was made.

Woodruff wrote:

wercool wrote:eccept some stuff in revelation that he didn't have a literall name for.also when it says that its fictional(ie. when jesus says that he's telling a parable.)other then that yes.

So then you believe that the parts in Genesis where it talks about creation that it literally took place within "a 24-hour period" for God to create each of those items. You believe that EVEN WHEN THERE WAS NO CONCEPT SUCH AS TIME, that time was still measured?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

wercool wrote:and yes i understand evolution perfectly i know that it contridects the bible. peiriod.

The only way the Bible contradicts evolution is if you believe that everything in the Bible is literally true. Do you honestly believe that?

Actually, even then it does not contradict evolution.

Sure it does, unless you believe the evolution up to man took less than a week.

No, because as you pointed out, our time did not exist back then. The reference of a day was to divide things up into a fashion understandable for humans. In modern useage, the word "day" could have been translated as "age". The "day" and even the "evening and day" references are not for Earthly time periods. Contrary to what many modern "fundamentalists" assert, that view is actually historical and more common among ancient scholars than the modern version. A lot of the assumptions about this were not made by the scholars or Rabbis, they were made by the common people. It was not considered a critical point, until scientific discoveries started to assert that the other view simply could not be possible. The point of Genesis is that God created all.

PLAYER57832 wrote:No, because as you pointed out, our time did not exist back then. The reference of a day was to divide things up into a fashion understandable for humans. In modern useage, the word "day" could have been translated as "age". The "day" and even the "evening and day" references are not for Earthly time periods. Contrary to what many modern "fundamentalists" assert, that view is actually historical and more common among ancient scholars than the modern version. A lot of the assumptions about this were not made by the scholars or Rabbis, they were made by the common people. It was not considered a critical point, until scientific discoveries started to assert that the other view simply could not be possible. The point of Genesis is that God created all.

I'm going to nit pick with you here. A lot of scholars will point out that the notion of "sunset to sunset" was fairly established in the semetic community at the time. One significant purpose of the first chapter story is to provide a non-pagan meaning to the notion of a seven day cycle, which was originally from ancient Babylon. It also established the theological basis for one of the words that formed the ten commandments. In the Babylonian week, each day was reflected with one god which in turn was mapped to the five planets plus the sun and moon. The genesis story, although naming the sun and moon as rullers of the heavens, maps the seven days into a structure of creation, (formed into six days, the first three days creating the divisions of the universe and the second three days populating the divisions of the universe with their respective rullers) followed by the criticial day of God's "rest."

Thus the notion of the "sunset to sunset" is clear in the Genesis story. What is a potential source of confision is wanting to make a linear narative out of a heirarchical one. Creation is mapped into the week to justify the week in priestly terms and to remove it from pagan terms.

Here are some images that support the notion that evolution has failed...enjoy...