 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6266
Location: Memphis
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:14 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| joman wrote: | | No, it’s not it’s the outcome of scientific experiment that proves that the Mendelian laws of genetics are valid and in line with the Bible as described in the book of Genesis. |
You've been focusing a lot on Mendel's work, of late. Mendel's work showed only the inheritance of traits in pea plants. At no point did he discover a pea plant which would no longer reproduce with specific other pea plants. So you're just making stuff up.
| joman wrote: | | The inability to reproduce reveals that the boundary that God set has been reached and cannot be overcome. Same as the mule. It cannot reproduce either. This is common knowledge.This is proof of the boundaries God set that don’t allow macroevolution to occur. |
But it isn't. The fly species which could no longer interbreed with the other strains could still reproduce within its own strain. Thusly, it is a new species.
| joman wrote: | | I don’t know. But, I recognize this as non-empirical evidence that cannot be considered as scientific data. |
Then stop acting like you know oh-so-much about evolution, as you quite plainly don't.
| joman wrote: | | Is this your best |
You quite plainly couldn't hold up to it, so keep trying to make it seem like you're "winning," or whatever it is you're doing.
| joman wrote: | | All con's and deceiver's use a measure of believability. |
Like "look how complicated this is. Is it not complicated?"
"Well, yes, yes I suppose it is pretty complicated."
"Therefore God exists."
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gbunty
Alley Cat
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 182
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 6:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| joman wrote: | | Quote: | | So where did donkeys come from? Did they evolve from the horses that left the ark following the flood? |
Yes. As the animals spread out upon the earth natural selection occurred to fit each animal appropriately to their enviroment and specific in breeding situation. Same as mankind did by families, and tribes, and languages.
Zebra's also would be a variation of horse I would think. Although knowing Gbunty I suspect we'll get moreinfo on it. |
So what you are saying is that when the horses left the ark, there was no boundary that prevented them from interbreeding. As they mated and reproduced they used their natural capacity for variation to generated different varieties of horses. e.g. Arabians, quarter-horses, Clydesdales, etc. But these are all still the same species as the horses Noah had on the ark. Right?
But that species that Noah had on the ark also generated other varieties of horse kind--varieties which we now call zebras and donkeys. But these varieties are no longer just varieties--they are separate species. How do we know they are separate species? Because they no longer interbreed freely with each other, and on the occasions that they do, they have difficulty producing a fertile hybrid. Right?
Now if I have painted that history correctly, explain this. At some point the difference between the ark horse species and the descendant varieties which ended up as zebras or donkeys must have been less distinct than it is now. At some point, the ancestors of today's zebras and donkeys must have been the same species as other horses, just as Arabian, quarter-horses, Clydesdales, etc. are all varieties of today's species of horses.
How did a species boundary grow up between horses and zebras and donkeys when it didn't exist in the first place? What produced this boundary between horses, zebras and donkeys when they are all descendants of the same pair of horses that stepped off of Noah's ark?
Notice, that I am not speaking of a boundary between kinds. I am speaking of a boundary that now exists within the horse kind that was not there originally. How did it come about, since it is not part of the original creation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joman
Tiger
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 816
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 6:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
FFT,
But it isn't. The fly species which could no longer interbreed with the other strains could still reproduce within its own strain. Thusly, it is a new species.
It's still a fly. Therefore the changes are micrevolutionary. also, please post where your info is on this particular fly.
Joman. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joman
Tiger
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 816
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
quotes by fft,
| Quote: | joman wrote:
I don’t know. But, I recognize this as non-empirical evidence that cannot be considered as scientific data.
Then stop acting like you know oh-so-much about evolution, as you quite plainly don't. |
I don't know anything about evolution and neither do you. Macroevolution is non existent. As I've said over and over...it's made up of philosophy, cartoon drawings, pictures, and invented charts of geneologies. Your pictures of skulls provides no information that is scientific in nature. If it does please expound on the scientific facts it presented to you.
| Quote: | joman wrote:
Is this your best
You quite plainly couldn't hold up to it, so keep trying to make it seem like you're "winning," or whatever it is you're doing. |
So, it is your best. I can't help but, win. You have no case.
| Quote: | joman wrote:
All con's and deceiver's use a measure of believability.
Like "look how complicated this is. Is it not complicated?"
"Well, yes, yes I suppose it is pretty complicated."
"Therefore God exists." |
My statement is true.
Your philosophy of a straw man is not.
Your example illustrates your shadow boxing ability...that's all.
I don't believe in God because of philosophy.
Complexity is not the product of chance. If it were, even you would suprise someone, sometime. Noise remains noise. If information arises from out of the noise it's source is intelligent or at the least it is according to order which has been dictated by a natural law. And, where do laws come from do you think? Complexity has a source of some kind. If you think otherwise please give a example of it.
Joman. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6266
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Your insisting on a disctinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution," asserting that the latter is impossible, is like saying "I believe people can walk 20 feet. However, I have never seen someone walk 20 miles, therefore it is impossible."
| joman wrote: | | As I've said over and over |
I tire of your constant prattling. This is nothing but an argumentum ad nauseum. You have no evidence for your assertions. You have done nothing but blindly attempt to refute what I have stated. While, no doubt, many of the board members here will see you as being correct, I know that at least a few recognize this.
I don't want to even begin to list the logical fallacies you commit by wrote, as it would take ages. Asserting that because all of your arguments are fallacious you are wrong would be fallacious in and of itself, but I'm still waiting to see a reasonable assertion. Let me know when you come up with one.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ekspiulo
Ferret
Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 123
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 11:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| joman wrote: |
It's still a fly. Therefore the changes are micrevolutionary. also, please post where your info is on this particular fly. |
Don't be absurd: that is goal post shifting if anything is.
Microfauna is microscopic. Flies are macroscopic, not to mention multicellular and members of the most diverse phylum of macrofauna on earth. If they can evolve, anything can evolve. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joman
Tiger
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 816
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Eks,
You have in your last post implied that there exists a new species of fly. If your example was a macroevolutionary example of a new species then it couldn't be a fly. Flies already exist. An example of a macroevolutionary change would be a new kind of creature not a modification of an already existing creature.
To believe that adaptation can produce an entirely new creature is faith based not scientific fact.
Joman. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joman
Tiger
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 816
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 2:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Eks,
| Quote: | | Microfauna is microscopic. |
Micro-evolutionary change doesn't mean the change was microscopic.
Macroevolutionary change doesn't mean the change was visible to the naked eye.
The micro part of the word defines the size of the change with repect to the size of the whole organism. Thus, an adaptation of a organism to it's enviroment has never been in question. It occurs all the time. The deceit lies in the pretense that micro-evolutionary changes "are" examples of macroevolution...when scientifically they aren't.
Joman. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joman
Tiger
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 816
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 2:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
FFT,
| Quote: | | Your insisting on a disctinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution," asserting that the latter is impossible, is like saying "I believe people can walk 20 feet. However, I have never seen someone walk 20 miles, therefore it is impossible." |
I'm not insisting on anything. Facts are facts.
The distinction between macro and micro evolution is basic to the debate. As long as you assert that micro evolutionary change is scientific you and I agree. but, you can present not one example of macroevolutionary change. It is a faith based understanding of nature.
Joman. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joman
Tiger
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 816
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 4:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
FFT,
| Quote: | | between "microevolution" and "macroevolution," asserting that the latter is impossible, is like saying "I believe people can walk 20 feet. However, I have never seen someone walk 20 miles, therefore it is impossible." |
Your analogy doesn't apply. It is scientifically provable that man can walk small and great distances. Thus, it isn't debatable.
Macroevolution is debatable because no scientific evidence exists. It is therefore, a faith based understanding of nature.
Joman. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6266
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
What barrier to "macroevolution" do you propose?
| joman wrote: | | Macroevolution is debatable because no scientific evidence exists. |
Gravity is debated all the time, but we're still drawn reliably to the ground, aren't we?
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eddy Tiner
Ferret
Joined: 17 Dec 2003
Posts: 120
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Joman,
I'm having a bit of trouble following you. I can't join in accusing you of goalpost shifting, but only because I'm unsure what sport you're playing. Help me out, here...
What are you arguing? That microevolution is possible, but macro is not? If that's the case, then please provide your definition of each.
One could also conclude that you believe evolution has existed since the great flood, but not before. Is that what you're arguing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joman
Tiger
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 816
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 5:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | What barrier to "macroevolution" do you propose? |
Genesis 1:24 "...God said...let the earth bring forth the living creature...cattle4,...creeping thing...beast...after his kind, and it was so."
God said it...therefore it is law...and no one can provide an example of nature disobey it.
| FFT wrote: | | Gravity is debated all the time, but we're still drawn reliably to the ground, aren't we? |
I've never known anyone to debate the existence of the law of gravity. It main be a mysterious thing but, it's unrelentilg effectiveness has been proven by the scientific method.
Evolutionism that states that a new kind of creature can be brought into existence by any means...has never been proven by the scientific method.
Joman. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joman
Tiger
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 816
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 5:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ed wrote: | Joman,
I'm having a bit of trouble following you. I can't join in accusing you of goalpost shifting, but only because I'm unsure what sport you're playing. Help me out, here...
What are you arguing? That microevolution is possible, but macro is not? If that's the case, then please provide your definition of each.
One could also conclude that you believe evolution has existed since the great flood, but not before. Is that what you're arguing? |
Joman,
"It's impossible by micro-mutation to form any new species."
(Dr. Richard Goldschmt, evolutionist. Founder of the "Hopeful Monster" theory.)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Macroevolution is the concept that evolution of species and higher taxa is the result of large-scale changes in gene-frequencies over time.
There are a number of views regarding macroevolution. Some evolutionary biologists, particularly Charles Darwin and those subscribing to the modern synthesis, see the only difference between microevolution and macroevolution as being one of scale. Other evolutionary biologists, including Gould, Schmalhausen, and Waddington, hold that microevolution and macroevolution are fundamentally different processes. Essentially the question is - how important are sudden developmental "spurts" to the overall process of evolution? Are they the driving force, or is gradual change the more important process?
Macroevolution is controversial outside the scientific community, and aspects of it are disputed by many movements such as creationism and intelligent design. Generally speaking, these groups differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution, asserting that the former is an observable phenomena, but that the latter is not. They have proposed a number of limits beyond which they believe evolution cannot occur. Proponents of Intelligent design argue that the mechanisms of evolution are incapable of giving rise to instances of specified complexity and irreducible complexity. Proponents of creation biology assert that life was originally created in a finite number of discrete created kinds beyond which and between which no evolution can occur, and that the dominant source of biological change is population isolation and genetic drift, or the loss of the diversity of the original kinds, rather than an increase of genetic diversity through mutation.
Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004).
I thought this was a fair presentation of the issues.
Joman. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6266
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| joman wrote: | | I thought this was a fair presentation of the issues. |
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
| joman wrote: | "It's impossible by micro-mutation to form any new species."
(Dr. Richard Goldschmt, evolutionist. Founder of the "Hopeful Monster" theory.) |
This is a quote mine. "Goldschmidt advanced a model of macroevolution through macromutations that is popularly known as the "Hopeful Monster" hypothesis. It was not generally accepted by the scientific community, and was ridiculed by some. At about the time that Stephen J. Gould proposed his theory of punctuated equilibrium, he predicted that Goldschmidt would be vindicated. Gould authored an article entitled, The Return of the Hopeful Monsters."
Goldschmidt did not see what he called an impossibility to be a barrier.
Note this bit: "Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution."
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
