 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 3:05 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ana wrote: | | Dr M wrote: | 6) Now the population is less able to adapt to future environmental changes i.e. were the climate to become hot, there is no genetic information for short fur, so dogs would probably overheat.
Evolution can not advance as a theory. |
That's not how evolution works. Some dogs have long hair and some dogs have short hair. If long hair were to become a trait that killed dogs before they could reproduce (and also barring human interference such as haircuts, air conditioning, relocation, etc), there would be short haired dogs who would survive and thus extinction wouldn't happen.
Extinction of the long haired dogs would occur! Do you mean Evolution or Natural Selection? I accept Natural Selection, just not Evolution.
As for your concern that genetic information can only be lost and never gained, here's an argument that you should accept if you accept the bible's story of Noah's ark to be true:
Noah and his family were the only 8 people to survive the Great Flood, and all the males were genetically related (Noah and his three sons). This alone cannot account for all the variance we see in humans today.
Negative. Rapid Speciation exists.
If that doesn't grab you, then perhaps citations of observed increase in genetic variance will be more to your liking.
Drosophila Silvestris
Maize |
Negative again. I accept Variation, just not Evolution. Whats to argue here? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1549
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dr M wrote: | | Ana wrote: | | Noah and his family were the only 8 people to survive the Great Flood, and all the males were genetically related (Noah and his three sons). This alone cannot account for all the variance we see in humans today. |
Negative. Rapid Speciation exists. |
Speciation is evolutionary, isn't it? Speciation implies new information, does it not? How do you explain this without using evolutionary concepts in your explanation?
In any case, you've used the fact that speciation occurs (rapidly or otherwise) as a response to my Noah train of thought - are you saying that we are different species than Noah? How does that work out?
Also, please learn how to separate what you're quoting from what you're saying, rather than just embedding your responses in one long block quote from someone else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ana wrote: | | Dr M wrote: | | Ana wrote: | | Noah and his family were the only 8 people to survive the Great Flood, and all the males were genetically related (Noah and his three sons). This alone cannot account for all the variance we see in humans today. |
Negative. Rapid Speciation exists. |
| Quote: | | Speciation is evolutionary, isn't it? Speciation implies new information, does it not? How do you explain this without using evolutionary concepts in your explanation? |
Speciation does not involve new information. It is not Evolutionary contrary to popular thought. In fact, a Young Earth Creation Scientist invented the concept in the first place. Darwin just stole the concept from him. Edward Blythe is the credited gentleman with actually discovering Speciation. Point number 2, it has nothing to do with Natural Selection. Different subjects here.
| Quote: | | In any case, you've used the fact that speciation occurs (rapidly or otherwise) as a response to my Noah train of thought - are you saying that we are different species than Noah? How does that work out? |
No thats your Evolution presupposition shining through. Since no new information has actually been supplied, your problem is that kinds reproduce only after their own kinds.
| Quote: | | Also, please learn how to separate what you're quoting from what you're saying, rather than just embedding your responses in one long block quote from someone else. |
|
I'll do that. Thanks for pointing out the mistake.
Last edited by Unverified on Wed Jan 10, 2007 3:38 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1549
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dr. Michael Martin very loudly wrote: |
Negative again. I accept Variation, just not Evolution. Whats to argue here? |
If you accept variation, why don't you accept evolution?
| Wikipedia wrote: | | Evolution is the process in which inherited traits become more or less common in a population over successive generations. Over time, this process can lead to speciation, the development of new species from existing ones. All extant organisms are related by common descent, having evolved over billions of years of cumulative genetic changes from a single ancestor. |
Basically, evolution = "variation happens" --> "accumulated variations results in speciation". So far it looks like you are agreeing with evolution? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ana wrote: | | Dr. Michael Martin very loudly wrote: |
Negative again. I accept Variation, just not Evolution. Whats to argue here? |
If you accept variation, why don't you accept evolution?
Variation does not involve new information being produced through Genetic information. Hence, the variation that we have does not help out Evolution arguments, who's primary purpose can be traced back to Charles Darwin for the purpose of actually creating a Naturalistic form of Science. I more or less reject all of Naturalism as a whole. Instead of going in with a mentality of, Prove something is Supernatural to me, I go in with a mentality of Prove something is Natural to me.
| Wikipedia wrote: | | Evolution is the process in which inherited traits become more or less common in a population over successive generations. Over time, this process can lead to speciation, the development of new species from existing ones. All extant organisms are related by common descent, having evolved over billions of years of cumulative genetic changes from a single ancestor. |
Basically, evolution = "variation happens" --> "accumulated variations results in speciation". So far it looks like you are agreeing with evolution? |
Variation doesn't result in Speciation however. Thats the major problem. Speciation is true, but it is not due to a result of Variation occurring. Blythe was very quick to point this out as well.
| Quote: | | Why is atheism a religion if Christianity isn't? |
Because Christianity is truth. Religion is belief based, Truth is knowledge based.
| Quote: | | "Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof" -Ashley Montagu |
- That was Stephen Jones, not Ashley Montagu.
Last edited by Unverified on Wed Jan 10, 2007 3:44 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1549
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dr. Michael Martin wrote: | | Ana wrote: |
In any case, you've used the fact that speciation occurs (rapidly or otherwise) as a response to my Noah train of thought - are you saying that we are different species than Noah? How does that work out? |
No thats your Evolution presupposition shining through. Since no new information has actually been supplied, your problem is that kinds produce only after their own kinds. |
Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. If you're saying that speciation accounts for the variance in humans today compared to what the Flood left us with, then you are saying that new species come into play here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ana wrote: | | Dr. Michael Martin wrote: | | Ana wrote: |
In any case, you've used the fact that speciation occurs (rapidly or otherwise) as a response to my Noah train of thought - are you saying that we are different species than Noah? How does that work out? |
No thats your Evolution presupposition shining through. Since no new information has actually been supplied, your problem is that kinds produce only after their own kinds. |
Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. If you're saying that speciation accounts for the variance in humans today compared to what the Flood left us with, then you are saying that new species come into play here. |
No new species have come into play though. Thats the purpose of the flood. 2 of every kind were actually preserved. That is so they would mate, reproduce and multiply throughout the world again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1549
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You accept that variation occurs. You accept that speciation occurs. So far you're accepting evolution. If you don't accept that speciation is due to accumulated variance, then how do you say speciation works?
| Dr M wrote: | | I more or less reject all of Naturalism as a whole. Instead of going in with a mentality of, Prove something is Supernatural to me, I go in with a mentality of Prove something is Natural to me. |
So, you're assuming an extra ingredient is there and saying "prove it's not there." That's a pretty big assumption, and it's one more assumption than Naturalism requires. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ana wrote: | You accept that variation occurs. You accept that speciation occurs. So far you're accepting evolution. If you don't accept that speciation is due to accumulated variance, then how do you say speciation works?
God created all species to reproduce after their kinds. Thats how it happened.
| Dr M wrote: | | I more or less reject all of Naturalism as a whole. Instead of going in with a mentality of, Prove something is Supernatural to me, I go in with a mentality of Prove something is Natural to me. |
So, you're assuming an extra ingredient is there and saying "prove it's not there." That's a pretty big assumption, and it's one more assumption than Naturalism requires. |
I'm not assuming at all. I have proof, so I don't need to assume its there. Naturalism can't prove anything, including itself, rendering it useless as a Philosophical stance.
Last edited by Unverified on Wed Jan 10, 2007 3:51 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1549
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dr. Michael Martin wrote: |
No new species have come into play though. Thats the purpose of the flood. 2 of every kind were actually preserved. That is so they would mate, reproduce and multiply throughout the world again. |
Well, there were 8 humans, but I still don't understand your position that speciation accounts for human variation today (considering the small gene pool Noah's troupe left us with), especially since you said no new species have come into play. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ana wrote: | | Dr. Michael Martin wrote: |
No new species have come into play though. Thats the purpose of the flood. 2 of every kind were actually preserved. That is so they would mate, reproduce and multiply throughout the world again. |
Well, there were 8 humans, but I still don't understand your position that speciation accounts for human variation today (considering the small gene pool Noah's troupe left us with), especially since you said no new species have come into play. |
Thats all the gene pool we need however. In one human being however, it has also been determined that the genes contained within that one human is quite significantly high. Since no additions of genes have occurred, we can only really conclude that this was also originally seen in their created forms. We don't need anymore than that. With rapid speciation occurring, after a while, the world would become more and more populated with people. After a while, the world would be covered with people and animals just as we have today.
Last edited by Unverified on Wed Jan 10, 2007 3:54 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1549
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dr M wrote: | | Ana wrote: | | Dr M wrote: | | I more or less reject all of Naturalism as a whole. Instead of going in with a mentality of, Prove something is Supernatural to me, I go in with a mentality of Prove something is Natural to me. |
So, you're assuming an extra ingredient is there and saying "prove it's not there." That's a pretty big assumption, and it's one more assumption than Naturalism requires. |
I'm not assuming at all. I have proof, so I don't need to assume its there. Naturalism can't prove anything, including itself, rendering it useless as a Philosophical stance. |
You have proof? Can you share that proof with me? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ana wrote: | | Dr M wrote: | | Ana wrote: | | Dr M wrote: | | I more or less reject all of Naturalism as a whole. Instead of going in with a mentality of, Prove something is Supernatural to me, I go in with a mentality of Prove something is Natural to me. |
So, you're assuming an extra ingredient is there and saying "prove it's not there." That's a pretty big assumption, and it's one more assumption than Naturalism requires. |
I'm not assuming at all. I have proof, so I don't need to assume its there. Naturalism can't prove anything, including itself, rendering it useless as a Philosophical stance. |
You have proof? Can you share that proof with me? |
DNA is a language. A language that is created within mankind would prove an Intelligent Designer. Since no new genes have been added to the DNA pool since the beginning of time, we are only to conclude that God was the responsible party in this instance. Thats proof enough in this case.
We have a ton of other Scientific proof however. For instance, no Ophthamologist really disagrees that the eye is intelligently designed (irreducibly complex), from both my experience and my research with others in the area.
Though I disagree with the Intelligent Design Movement, I do agree with that part of their research.
Let me think of some others. Amino Acids are so important within protein that if 3 were basically taken away from it, it would prove to have disastrous consequences. Thats significant in proving a Creator of some sort as well. This infers that the human is a finely tuned being. Created after the image of God? Most certainly if God is a perfect being as corresponds within the Bible.
Which I find funny enough leads us to Romans 1:20 - 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For the record, Irreducible Complexity may be defined as: Irreducible complexity (IC) is the argument that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, and are at the same time too complex to have arisen naturally through chance mutations. An "irreducibly complex" system is defined by the term's originator, biochemistry professor Michael Behe, as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning"[1]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
Its the Minimalist Theory of Truth in action here.
A major problem with the ID movement is that it lacks the necessary component to be able to explain what Science needs to operate effectively: Natural Selection! Its easy for Evolutionists to stomp Intelligent Design for this reason as well. But when they face Young Earth Creation Scientists, thats when they typically go into dear in the headlight stage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6805
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dr. Michael Martin wrote: |
We have a ton of other Scientific proof however. For instance, no Ophthamologist really disagrees that the eye is intelligently designed (irreducibly complex), from both my experience and my research with others in the area.
|
Actually, pretty much ALL ophthamologists disagree. It's funny; I was talking to an ophthamologist last year, and this subject came up; he absolutely disagrees with you.
Can you cite a single article from a mainstream ophthamology journal which supports your claim? Remember, you seem to think that all of the opthamologists out there agree with you, so I'm not asking for a lot here...
| Dr. Michael Martin wrote: |
Let me think of some others. Amino Acids are so important within protein that if 3 were basically taken away from it, it would prove to have disastrous consequences.
|
You're totally wrong. You don't know anything about protein structure, do you? Beta sheets are an obvious counterexample to your claim. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Dr. Michael Martin wrote: |
We have a ton of other Scientific proof however. For instance, no Ophthamologist really disagrees that the eye is intelligently designed (irreducibly complex), from both my experience and my research with others in the area.
|
Actually, pretty much ALL ophthamologists disagree. It's funny; I was talking to an ophthamologist last year, and this subject came up; he absolutely disagrees with you.
Who was this Opthamologist? Are you involved with the Sciences at all P123?
Can you cite a single article from a mainstream ophthamology journal which supports your claim? Remember, you seem to think that all of the opthamologists out there agree with you, so I'm not asking for a lot here...
Not at all. Try Dr. George Marshall here: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/840/
| Dr. Michael Martin wrote: |
Let me think of some others. Amino Acids are so important within protein that if 3 were basically taken away from it, it would prove to have disastrous consequences.
|
You're totally wrong. You don't know anything about protein structure, do you? Beta sheets are an obvious counterexample to your claim. |
Beta sheets? Nonsense. I'm sorry, I believe this blooper goes to Ian Plimer. A Geologist trying to speak on matters of Biochemistry...not too impressive for that one. How in the world do Beta sheets counter my example? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
