Evolution vs. Creation

[cuppajoe_9]

the ribs were a point that the linage isn't logical.

There is no reason to assume that the number of ribs could not go back and fourth due to environmental changes that, for whatever reason, made it advantageous to have greater or fewer ribs.

[cuppajoe_9]

natural selection does not mean evolution.

No, but it is the process by which evolution happens.

Would you mind terribly trying to keep all the points you want to make at a given time in one post? It clutters up the boards. Thank you.

[ruhbr_ducky]

Sorry, didn't mean to clutter, thought just come to me.
Natural Selection has absolutly nothing, what so ever ,to do with evolution

[cuppajoe_9]

Natural Selection has absolutly nothing, what so ever ,to do with evolution

Interesting how the book in which the theory was first described is a book about evolution then, eh?

[ruhbr_ducky]

That book has nothing to do with the meaning of the term natural selection.
It is a self evident truth-an animal well-suited to its enviroment is certainly more likely to thrive than an animal poorly suited to its enviroment.Darwin
believed that natural selection would act upon the variety that naturally occurs within kinds to gradually produce new kinds.This reasoning is faulty because variety within kinds has definite boundaries-which was a fact Darwin was not even aware of.Natural selection acts to preserve existing kinds, not create new kinds.

[cuppajoe_9]

That book has nothing to do with the meaning of the term natural selection.

Darwin invented the term, he can define it how he likes.

Darwin believed that natural selection would act upon the variety that naturally occurs within kinds to gradually produce new kinds.This reasoning is faulty because variety within kinds has definite boundaries-which was a fact Darwin was not even aware of.Natural selection acts to preserve existing kinds, not create new kinds.

You're going to have to define the term 'kinds' a little better. Do you mean species? Genuses? Kingdoms?

[Adolescent09]

Sorry, didn't mean to clutter, thought just come to me.
Natural Selection has absolutly nothing, what so ever ,to do with evolution

It's quite hilarious how absolutely wrong you are. Natural Selection is the REASON for Evolution. The fundamental process of Natural selection in biology is the reason Evolution exists... Even I know that for sure..

[Adolescent09]

That book has nothing to do with the meaning of the term natural selection.
It is a self evident truth-an animal well-suited to its enviroment is certainly more likely to thrive than an animal poorly suited to its enviroment.Darwin
believed that natural selection would act upon the variety that naturally occurs within kinds to gradually produce new kinds.This reasoning is faulty because variety within kinds has definite boundaries-which was a fact Darwin was not even aware of.Natural selection acts to preserve existing kinds, not create new kinds.

This perception is completely false and you're not even backing it up with feasible arguments...

[ruhbr_ducky]

We could debate this subject to the end of the world, so I am going to state
my truth clearly, as best I can.

I do not accept evolution on the basis that it is an unfounded and baseless hypothesis.It goes against 3 universally accepted laws and principles,(1 being the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it states that for every process,there is an overall loss of useful energy and a tendency toward greater disorder(this is the opposite of evolution.) (2 being the Law of Biogenesis, that states that living things can only come from other living things. Evolution has no other explination other than abiogenesis. This begining is very important, it is the basic question behind creation vs. evolution.(3 being the cell princple, that
states that all living things are composed of living units called cells and of cell products and that all cells come from preexisting cells.Not even the simplest of oranisms can develop from nonliving matter,that is on the authority of Louis Pasteur.

Scientific facts exist.Answers to scientific question exists.Evolution doesn't
offer any facts or proof that can or will hold up to scientific observation or experimentation.Most evolutionist conceed to this point.

I do not accept the evolutionists geologic column because there is not a single place on the earth where you can go and see the geologic column.
It is only a tool in circular reasoning ,there is no objective way to look at a sample of sedimentary rock and determine its age.There are no "Missing Links"
as evolutionists present, all "transitional form" have been proven to be either 100% human or 100% animal, no 50-50.
Variety within kinds generally results from preexisting genetic variety(genes that were present from the beginning),and that there are fixed limits to biological change.Mutations cause genetic information to be lost, not gained,so the rules out the puntuated equilibrium."The chance that highter life forms might have emereged in this way [by mutations and natural selection] is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard migh assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein"-Sir Fred Hoyle,astronomer.
As for the slower version of evolution it would require that all structures had to develop one small step at a time, while remaining fully functional at every step.For example evolutionists believe that the four-chambered heart of birds and mammals evolved from the one-chambered heart of invertebrates.Obviously,the heart sould not cease to function at any time during this transition, for the animal would quicky die without a functioning heart.This is a quote from Darwin himself"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possible have been formed by numerous,successive,slight modifications,my theory would absolutely break down." Ok here is an example of his organ,take the bat ,evolutionists teach that bats evolved from small,four-legged,rodentlike mammal similar to the modern shrews.However,a bat's wing are composed of extraordinarily long finger bones conected by a thin web of skin.In order for a shrew's forepaws to gradually become wings, the forepaws would become useless for grasping or running long before they would be able to fly. Darwin's theory destroyed.

I do however accept the Genesis record that God created the heavens and the earth, including all that they contain, in six literal days(for ya'll who know latin check it out, the translation of the word means literal 24 hr. days.)God spoke that dosen't need non-living matter to living matter, it is so much simpler.I believe the King James Bible is the complete and literal word of God,
it states"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."-Genesis 1:1.Try reading the first 2 chapters.Any questions concerning this I'd be happy to try and find an answer. Thanx, ruhbr_ducky

[ruhbr_ducky]

Kind means a group of similar organisms that are all decsended from a single group of originally created animals and may refer to a species, a genus, or a family.As a general rule,members of the same kind are biologically capable of producing fertile offspring,although they may not interbreed at all in nature because of geographical or behavioral differences. Defined enough?

[cuppajoe_9]

(1 being the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it states that for every process,there is an overall loss of useful energy and a tendency toward greater disorder(this is the opposite of evolution.)

Creative, but no. The Second Law predicts a tendency towards disorder in a closed system, which the earth is not. It is constantly being bombared with radiant energy. From the sun.

(2 being the Law of Biogenesis, that states that living things can only come from other living things. Evolution has no other explination other than abiogenesis. This begining is very important, it is the basic question behind creation vs. evolution.(3 being the cell princple, that
states that all living things are composed of living units called cells and of cell products and that all cells come from preexisting cells.Not even the simplest of oranisms can develop from nonliving matter,that is on the authority of Louis Pasteur.

I've already dealt with the abiogenesis straw-man several times now.

Even if you're Louis Pasteur, it is not logically possible to prove that something can't be done.

.Evolution doesn't offer any facts or proof that can or will hold up to scientific observation or experimentation.Most evolutionist conceed to this point.

An outrageous lie. I've linked you to a site which provides several of the predictions that evolution makes, the evidence that bears these predictions out, and possible falsifications thereof. You may read it at your pleasure.

I do not accept the evolutionists geologic column because there is not a single place on the earth where you can go and see the geologic column.

So what? There are plenty of place where you can go to see bits and pieces of the geological column, and these can be pieced together using radiometric dating and other independant confirmations.

There are no "Missing Links" as evolutionists present, all "transitional form" have been proven to be either 100% human or 100% animal, no 50-50.

This is becaue you don't know what a 'missing link' (or, more properly, transitional form) looks like. If we have a fossilized organism with traits AAAA and a fossilized organism with traits BBBB, then the transitional forms are organisms AAAB, AABB, and ABBB. You're looking for a organism A/B A/B A/B A/B, which would be inviable and doesn't exist. In addition, the human/animal distinction has no scientific value. Humans are animals, in the biological sense.

Mutations cause genetic information to be lost, not gained,so the rules out the puntuated equilibrium."

Beneficial mutations have been observed to cause speciation, in both the wild and in the lab, in both unicellular and more complex organims.

Ok here is an example of his organ,take the bat ,evolutionists teach that bats evolved from small,four-legged,rodentlike mammal similar to the modern shrews.However,a bat's wing are composed of extraordinarily long finger bones conected by a thin web of skin.In order for a shrew's forepaws to gradually become wings, the forepaws would become useless for grasping or running long before they would be able to fly. Darwin's theory destroyed.

Why couldn't the shrew go through a number of flying-squirrel-like stages on its way to being a bat? I can deal with as many arguments from lack of imagination as you're willing to think up.

I do however accept the Genesis record that God created the heavens and the earth, including all that they contain, in six literal days(for ya'll who know latin check it out, the translation of the word means literal 24 hr. days.)God spoke that dosen't need non-living matter to living matter, it is so much simpler.I believe the King James Bible is the complete and literal word of God, it states"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."-Genesis 1:1.Try reading the first 2 chapters.Any questions concerning this I'd be happy to try and find an answer.

I've read them. However, I have a proposition for you: I will reread one book of the Bible of your choice for every page of my link that you read, provided that you also read the linked references for any claim that you find suspicious. Even so, that has me reading about ten words to your one. If I'm going to look at your evidence, you can certainly look at mine. Fair?

Kind means a group of similar organisms that are all decsended from a single group of originally created animals and may refer to a species, a genus, or a family.As a general rule,members of the same kind are biologically capable of producing fertile offspring,although they may not interbreed at all in nature because of geographical or behavioral differences. Defined enough?

That's almost exactly the same thing as a species and, as I say, speciation has been observed.

[HannibalBarca]

I'm going with creation, but it may be both.

[ruhbr_ducky]

Try checking out some of these,and see if you don't find some answers.
icr.org and anwsersingenesis.org
If The Second Law of Thermodynamics is only creative then why do you see the atrophathy of the earth? Since we are so observant.
There are deffinant laws and limits to a rational world, so it is illogical to say that nothing can be known for sure.It really dosen't matter that it was Pasture I stated, it is a scientific law that organismis can't develop from non-living matter.
The geologic column is important because if it were laid down in that order you should be able to observe it.You can't, so it wasn't .
You oppinion on mutation is biased,never has any benificial mutation been produced.Please, don't mention the fly with four wings, it is bogus,the animal was impared and unable to fly.Not a benificial mutation.
Try some other web sites.
Give up on the transitional forms, you have no proof.
Even if the shrew went throught flying bat stages how would it eat,please remember they have to stay fully functional.The shrew would die of starvation for lack of the ability to feed itself in the begining stages.
P.S. I thought you believed in macromutions?
I asked you only to read two chapters.

[cuppajoe_9]

at Answers in Genesis. I've been.

There are deffinant laws and limits to a rational world, so it is illogical to say that nothing can be known for sure.

Good thing that's not at all what I said.

The geologic column is important because if it were laid down in that order you should be able to observe it.You can't, so it wasn't .

I know it's important. Try reading my entire sentence next time.

You oppinion on mutation is biased,never has any benificial mutation been produced.Please, don't mention the fly with four wings, it is bogus,the animal was impared and unable to fly.Not a benificial mutation.

Dude, I never did mention the fly with four wings. I've never even heard of the fly with four wings. Would it be too much to ask that you respond to what I actually say?

Give up on the transitional forms, you have no proof.

Yes I do, you just refuse to read the evidence.

Even if the shrew went throught flying bat stages how would it eat,please remember they have to stay fully functional.

Here's a hint: flying squirrels can eat.

I asked you only to read two chapters.

I'll re-read the whole book if you read one page.

[kilted exile]

ay ay ay......

1) There is evidence of speciation - there is even links to articles within this thread showing such (post 292, page 20)

2) Why would anybody look for an objective analysis at a website called answersingenesis.com?

3) I have posted elsewhere in this thread examples of beneficial mutations, see about 5/6pages back re: sickle cell anaemia. Then of course there is the theory regarding the development of the girrafes elongated neck

4) Am I wasting my time, are people actually interested in learning about the theory of evolution or are you just looking for an argument