Re: Darwin's Finches Evolve Before Scientists' Eyes
Free Lunch
Steamboat <RTu...@detroitlive.net> wrote in
<mejgb258kr9n67rnj...@4ax.com>:
>On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 10:46:26 +1200, colp
><co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote:
>
>Libertarius wrote:
>>
>> Pastor Dave wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 13 Jul 2006 22:29:21 -0700, "Steven J."
>>><stev...@altavista.com> spake thusly:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Pastor Dave wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:45:25 -0500, Charles
>Darwin III
>>>>><Charl...@postnet.net> spake thusly:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>For the first time scientists have observed
>in
>>>>>>real-time evolutionary changes in one species
>>>>>>driven by competition for resources from
>another.
>>>>>
>>>>>Finches from finches is finches.
>>>>
>>>>I would say, "finches from finches *are* finches."
>>>
>>>And you would be correct. :)
>>
>>
>> ===>Until the new species are recognized as such and are
>> given a new name.
>
>How do you differentiate between non-evolutionary adaptions (finches
>from finches) and cross species evolution (humans from apes) ?
Finch is the name of a cluster of species, just as great ape is a name
of a cluster of species. Humans are great apes.
>In other words, at what point does a change in
>beak size indicate a
>change into another species?
When the organisms with different characteristics don't interbreed.
>Generally speaking, when the two members of the
>two groups cannot mate *AND* cannot produce viable
>offspring. As an example, a donkey is not a
>species because it cannot produce young donkeys.
Okay.
Free Lunch
colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44b87759$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>Libertarius wrote:
>>
>> colp wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Giving a finch with a small beak a different name does not make it a
>>>different species.
>>
>>
>> ===>So, in your view, a naked, bipedal ape like Homo Sapiens
>> should not be called a separate species.
>
>No, that is not my view.
>
>It remains that the subject of the original article is misleading
>because the finches did not evolve in the Darwinian sense.
Your claim is false.
You have either misunderstood the meanings of 'species', 'variation', or
'natural selection' or what Darwin wrote about them. You may have
misunderstood more than one of these concepts.
Free Lunch
colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44b8765a$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>Libertarius wrote:
>>
>> colp wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In what way is it a silly idea that the monotremes (platypus and
>>>friends) were created?
>>
>>
>> ===>Because it is nothing but a fairy tale:
>> A clumsy extraterrestrial named YHWH ELOHIM sculpted the ancestors of all
>> species out of mud and made them alive by blowing air into their noses.
>> (Seee Genesis Ch. 2)
>> THAT is the basis of "creationism".
>
>No it isn't. The creation of the monotremes is based on Genesis chapter
>1, not chapter 2, which relates the account of the formation of Adam.
Genesis is meaningless here. It is a demonstrable heresy that tells us
that God did this in a short time in a literal fashion. It is a heresy
because it makes claims that are contrary to the physical evidence.
>>>The theory of evolution is not a fact because it has not been proven to
>>>be true.
>>
>>
>> ===>You obviously are ignorant of the fact that
>> no theory is ever "proven to be true".
>
>That would only be obvious to someone who suffered from the delusion of
>thinking that they knew what someone else thought, even though it had
>not been stated.
Your claims are inconsistent with the evidence and with the scientific
method.
>The theory of evolution is, in general, promoted as being factual by the
>scientific community.
Theories are either accurate or not. They rely on facts for their
development. The theory of evolution is quite accurate based on the
evidence available to date. You have demonstrated that you do not know
or understand the facts that the theory of evolution was developed from,
so you have shown that your critique of the theory of evolution is
worthless, without even having the added humor that Velikovsky or
Hubbard offered.
Free Lunch
colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44b867e0$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>HiEv wrote:
>
>>
>> I think SJAB1958 is basically right, but some of his reasoning is wrong.
>>
>
>Until someone shows that the short-beak finches are unable to produce
>fertile offspring with other finches there is no evidence that the
>short-beak finches have evolved into another species.
If it were demonstrated that humans and chimpanzees could produce
fertile offspring would you claim that chimps and humans are the same
species?
>I agree that different species can produce offspring (eg horse + donkey
>= mule), but AFAIK these offsping are sterile.
Of course plants manage to cross species and create new ones fairly
often. Why do you ignore that?
Free Lunch
colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44b8698f$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>HiEv wrote:
>> Libertarius wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>>But a NEW SPECIES is a NEW SPECIES, like it or not.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> You read the article wrong. The "new species" discussed did not refer
>> to a species that didn't exist before, it referred to a species that was
>> new to a particular island. The important part was that the species
>> which was native to the island evolved due to a change in the
>> environment caused by the appearance of a species that was new to the
>> island.
>>
>
>I think the original article misused the term evolve since it hasn't
>been shown that Darwinian evolution occurred in the case of the finches.
>
>The only new species was the second species on finch that arrived at the
>island. The original species adapted to the competetion by it did not
>evolve in the Darwinian sense.
You once again betray your lack of understanding of evolution. Learn
what you are talking about before you make claims that are inconsistent
with science.
Libertarius
Evidence for Belief.
He writes: "the evidence in favor of evolution is utterly compelling". He says
about the so-called "intelligent design":
"I.D. portrays the Almighty as a clumsy Creator, having to intervene at regular
intervals to fix the inadequacies of His own initial plan ... this is a very
unsatisfactory
image".
Collins is THE recognized expert on the human genome, and in his book points to
NONFUNCTIONAL ELEMENTS exactly where they are on the chromosomes of
lower animals. He askes, if God was creating humans separately "why would he
insert a pseudo-gene that has lost its ability to do anything in the same place
that
it appears in a chimp?"
If you deny evolution,"you're forced to the conclusion that God was trying to
mislead us and test our faith--and I have trouble with that kind of
conjecture." -- L.
colp
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 17:16:57 +1200, in alt.talk.creationism
> colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44b8765a$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>
>>
>>1, not chapter 2, which relates the account of the formation of Adam.
>
>
> Genesis is meaningless here. It is a demonstrable heresy that tells us
> that God did this in a short time in a literal fashion. It is a heresy
> because it makes claims that are contrary to the physical evidence.
>
Genesis does not make claims that are contrary to the physical evidence.
"Young earth" proponents may interpret it as such, but Genesis clearly
states that the Earth already existed before the six day creation occurred.
>
>>>>The theory of evolution is not a fact because it has not been proven to
>>>>be true.
>>>
>>>
>>>===>You obviously are ignorant of the fact that
>>>no theory is ever "proven to be true".
>>
>>That would only be obvious to someone who suffered from the delusion of
>>thinking that they knew what someone else thought, even though it had
>>not been stated.
>
>
> Your claims are inconsistent with the evidence and with the scientific
> method.
Which claims, specifically?
Darwinian evolution is not a factual (or accurate) description of the
origins of life on this planet.
>
>
>>The theory of evolution is, in general, promoted as being factual by the
>>scientific community.
>
>
> Theories are either accurate or not. They rely on facts for their
> development.
Yes.
You have demonstrated that you do not know
> or understand the facts that the theory of evolution was developed from,
In your delusion.
colp
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 17:21:13 +1200, in alt.talk.creationism
> colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44b87759$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>
>>Libertarius wrote:
>>
>>>colp wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Giving a finch with a small beak a different name does not make it a
>>>>different species.
>>>
>>>
>>>===>So, in your view, a naked, bipedal ape like Homo Sapiens
>>>should not be called a separate species.
>>
>>No, that is not my view.
>>
>>It remains that the subject of the original article is misleading
>>because the finches did not evolve in the Darwinian sense.
>
>
> Your claim is false.
So you are claiming that the finches evolved in the Darwinian sense when
nobody has shown that they became unable to breed with the finches from
which they supposedly evolved?
>
> You have either misunderstood the meanings of 'species', 'variation', or
> 'natural selection' or what Darwin wrote about them. You may have
> misunderstood more than one of these concepts.
False.
colp
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 16:15:11 +1200, in alt.talk.creationism
> colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44b867e0$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>
>>HiEv wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I think SJAB1958 is basically right, but some of his reasoning is wrong.
>>>
>>
>>Until someone shows that the short-beak finches are unable to produce
>>fertile offspring with other finches there is no evidence that the
>>short-beak finches have evolved into another species.
>
>
> If it were demonstrated that humans and chimpanzees could produce
> fertile offspring would you claim that chimps and humans are the same
> species?
>
No, I wouldn't.
>
>>I agree that different species can produce offspring (eg horse + donkey
>>= mule), but AFAIK these offsping are sterile.
>
>
> Of course plants manage to cross species and create new ones fairly
> often. Why do you ignore that?
Because the discussion is about finches.
colp
So you think that adaption to a different environment is representative
of Darwinian evolution, rather than the advent of a new species?
NeonmageK
Selection is the process by which Darwinist Evolution occurs. New species
come about by species adapting to the environment via natural selection. For
it to be otherwise there would have to be a mechanism preventing it. Darwin
provided adaptations of finches to their environment as evidence backing is
theory. The specific finch he used is now known as the Darwin Finch. If you
would like I can try do dig up information about examples of where
adaptation lead to animals not being able to reproduce with the original
species if you would like. Invariably if I do someone will start asking me
to show when a monkey gave birth to a human though hehe.
"colp" <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message
news:44b9...@news.orcon.net.nz...
colp
> Natural
> Selection is the process by which Darwinist Evolution occurs.
Accordign to theory, yes.
> New species
> come about by species adapting to the environment via natural selection.
New species which are unable to reproduce with their ancestor species,
according to the theory.
For
> it to be otherwise there would have to be a mechanism preventing it.
The description of mechanisms lies with the proponents of the theory.
Detractors need only show how the theoretical mechanisms do not account
for the observable facts.
Darwin
> provided adaptations of finches to their environment as evidence backing is
> theory. The specific finch he used is now known as the Darwin Finch. If you
> would like I can try do dig up information about examples of where
> adaptation lead to animals not being able to reproduce with the original
> species if you would like.
I would be satisfied with any documented case of an animal species
evolving into one that was unable to reproduce with its ancestor species.
Invariably if I do someone will start asking me
> to show when a monkey gave birth to a human though hehe.
It won't be me asking for that example.
TimK
>
> Darwinian evolution is not a factual (or accurate) description of the
> origins of life on this planet.
Nor was it ever intended to be.
TimK
"NeonmageK" <neon...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Pthug.19806$f76.12586@dukeread06...
>I think you are mistakenly looking at it at the wrong angle. Natural
>Selection is the process by which Darwinist Evolution occurs.
A process, not *the* process.
Here are some terms for you to look up and learn
Genetic drift, crossing over, mutation.
NeonmageK
correct the detractors usually try to redefine what Evolution is (use a
strawman) when debating about the issue. That and because they are unable to
show evidence of how Natural Selection could not lead to new species, while
as there is plenty of evidence that it does. They could, of course, take a
different route and provide a contrary theory which better accounts for the
evidence we have. So far no such theory exists. There is debate about
whether or not it happens because some people are very ignorant on the issue
and it conflicts with what many would like to be true. Notice how the vast
majority of people who reject Evolution just so happen to be Conservative
Christian. Another problem is that the detractors usually demand evidence
but do not understand the theory. If someone doesn't understand a theory, be
it Evolution or some other theory, the person can not know if something is
evidence for or contrary to the theory. Of course the very same people (most
of them) claim there is evidence to the contrary.
"colp" <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message
news:44b9af36$1...@news.orcon.net.nz...
NeonmageK
"TimK" <tim...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:kHiug.2786$cF6...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
colp
> Natural Selection is the mechanism the proponents tout.
So you didn't find any examples of adaptation lead to animals not being
able to reproduce with the original species? Why am I not suprised?
> It is so obviously
> correct the detractors usually try to redefine what Evolution is (use a
> strawman) when debating about the issue.
It's only a straw man if the definiton used does not embody the
essential elements of the Darwinian theory of evolution. Since the
theory is supposed to explain the origins of life on this planet, it
must include a description of a process which could cause cases which do
exist. If the theory can only explain the existence of a limited number
of creatures then it is not credible an a general explanation for life
on this planet.
> That and because they are unable to
> show evidence of how Natural Selection could not lead to new species,
while
> as there is plenty of evidence that it does.
I (as a detractor) am not arguing as to whether natural selection
happens or not, but I assert that natural selection means that the
evolved species will always be able to produce viable offspring with the
species from which it evolved. Natural selection describes the advent of
an characteristic advantageous to the species, and the loss of the
ability to produce offspring is never advantageous.
> They could, of course, take a
> different route and provide a contrary theory which better accounts
for the
> evidence we have.
They have already, but the theory is not a scientific one.
> So far no such theory exists.
It does exists, but it is criticised for being "too simple".
> There is debate about
> whether or not it happens because some people are very ignorant on the
issue
> and it conflicts with what many would like to be true. Notice how the
vast
> majority of people who reject Evolution just so happen to be Conservative
> Christian.
True enough, but this does not effect the issue of the Darwinian theory
of evolution being unable to explain the origins of pairs of animals
which cannot produce fertile offspring (eg horse & donkey).
> Another problem is that the detractors usually demand evidence
> but do not understand the theory. If someone doesn't understand a
theory, be
> it Evolution or some other theory, the person can not know if
something is
> evidence for or contrary to the theory. Of course the very same people
(most
> of them) claim there is evidence to the contrary.
If you understand the theory of Darwinian evolution and you believe that
you are able to explain the horse and donkey problem then why don't you
go ahead and do it?
TimK
> NeonmageK wrote:
> It's only a straw man if the definiton used does not embody the
> essential elements of the Darwinian theory of evolution. \
See my comments above and add The Modern Synthesis. Darwin is yesterday's
news.
Since the
> theory is supposed to explain the origins of life on this planet, it
No it most certainly is not!
Its aim is to explain the origins of the diversity of life on earth -
there's a fair difference there.
Free Lunch
colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44b99af3$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 17:16:57 +1200, in alt.talk.creationism
>> colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44b8765a$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>>
>>>
>>>No it isn't. The creation of the monotremes is based on Genesis chapter
>>>1, not chapter 2, which relates the account of the formation of Adam.
>>
>>
>> Genesis is meaningless here. It is a demonstrable heresy that tells us
>> that God did this in a short time in a literal fashion. It is a heresy
>> because it makes claims that are contrary to the physical evidence.
>>
>
>Genesis does not make claims that are contrary to the physical evidence.
>"Young earth" proponents may interpret it as such, but Genesis clearly
>states that the Earth already existed before the six day creation occurred.
Genesis tells a story, the story is rooted in a cosmology of a fixed
earth. Trying to claim that the authors Genesis somehow manage to tell
us about modern scientific discoveries is just as silly as claiming that
Nostradamus predicted the WTC attack.
>>>>>The theory of evolution is not a fact because it has not been proven to
>>>>>be true.
>>>>
>>>>===>You obviously are ignorant of the fact that
>>>>no theory is ever "proven to be true".
>>>
>>>That would only be obvious to someone who suffered from the delusion of
>>>thinking that they knew what someone else thought, even though it had
>>>not been stated.
>>
>> Your claims are inconsistent with the evidence and with the scientific
>> method.
>
>Which claims, specifically?
Silly claims like "the theory of evolution is not a fact".
>Darwinian evolution is not a factual (or accurate) description of the
>origins of life on this planet.
The theory of evolution explains quite well the life we observe on this
planet today. It does not explain how life got started on this planet,
but it never claimed to -- it is dishonest enemies of science who try to
attack a theory based on something the theory does not say or imply.
>>>The theory of evolution is, in general, promoted as being factual by the
>>>scientific community.
>>
>> Theories are either accurate or not. They rely on facts for their
>> development.
>
>Yes.
Does that mean that you understand how you are wrong when you said that
"the theory of evolution is not a fact"?
> You have demonstrated that you do not know
>> or understand the facts that the theory of evolution was developed from,
>
>In your delusion.
I guess not. Learn some science.
Free Lunch
colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44b997ac$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>Libertarius wrote:
>>
>> colp wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Libertarius wrote:
>>>
>>>>colp wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In what way is it a silly idea that the monotremes (platypus and
>>>>>friends) were created?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>===>Because it is nothing but a fairy tale:
>>>>A clumsy extraterrestrial named YHWH ELOHIM sculpted the ancestors of all
>>>>species out of mud and made them alive by blowing air into their noses.
>>>>(Seee Genesis Ch. 2)
>>>>THAT is the basis of "creationism".
>>>
>>>1, not chapter 2, which relates the account of the formation of Adam.
>>
>>
>
>While that is the usual interpretation, the first humans were created by
>the Elohim in chapter one. Chapter one and chapter two are accounts of
>different events, with different sequences of events according to those
>two accounts.
Which is why the names of the gods changed, right?
>>>The theory of evolution is, in general, promoted as being factual by the
>>>scientific community.
>>
>>
>> ===>That is TOTALLY FALSE!
>> NO theory is "promoted as being factual".
>
>Wrong.
>
>Lauran Moran claims that evolution is a fact and a theory.
Once again you prove that you will say anything without understanding
it. There are facts of evolution. They have been observed and described.
A few of the most critical facts are that genetic replication is
imperfect, adding variation to the population, and that the best adapted
populations are the ones that survive in a particular ecological niche.
The theory of evolution is the model that ties together these facts.
Gravity is a fact. It is also a theory. It's quite simple not to confuse
those, either. You'll have to learn to distinguish between theory and
facts.
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
>
>... as does Richard E. Lenski
>
>"Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can
>explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is
>both a fact and a theory."
>
>http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html
Free Lunch
colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44b99c02$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 17:21:13 +1200, in alt.talk.creationism
>> colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44b87759$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>>
>>>Libertarius wrote:
>>>
>>>>colp wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Giving a finch with a small beak a different name does not make it a
>>>>>different species.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>===>So, in your view, a naked, bipedal ape like Homo Sapiens
>>>>should not be called a separate species.
>>>
>>>No, that is not my view.
>>>
>>>It remains that the subject of the original article is misleading
>>>because the finches did not evolve in the Darwinian sense.
>>
>>
>> Your claim is false.
>
>So you are claiming that the finches evolved in the Darwinian sense when
>nobody has shown that they became unable to breed with the finches from
>which they supposedly evolved?
The finches have evolved. (I have no idea what you mean with your
private definition of 'Darwinian sense' nor do I care, science has
enough, well-defined words that we don't need to use special ones that
are understood only by the writer.) They do not interbreed.
>> You have either misunderstood the meanings of 'species', 'variation', or
>> 'natural selection' or what Darwin wrote about them. You may have
>> misunderstood more than one of these concepts.
>
>False.
If you understand those concepts, you are merely being dishonest then.
Free Lunch
colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44b99dc1$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 16:15:11 +1200, in alt.talk.creationism
>> colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44b867e0$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>>
>>>HiEv wrote:
>>>
>>>>I think SJAB1958 is basically right, but some of his reasoning is wrong.
>>>>
>>>Until someone shows that the short-beak finches are unable to produce
>>>fertile offspring with other finches there is no evidence that the
>>>short-beak finches have evolved into another species.
>>
>> If it were demonstrated that humans and chimpanzees could produce
>> fertile offspring would you claim that chimps and humans are the same
>> species?
>
>No, I wouldn't.
Then why do you make the same statement about finches?
>>>I agree that different species can produce offspring (eg horse + donkey
>>>= mule), but AFAIK these offsping are sterile.
>>
>>
>> Of course plants manage to cross species and create new ones fairly
>> often. Why do you ignore that?
>
>Because the discussion is about finches.
Life is life. It all works the same way.
Free Lunch
colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44b9...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
That question makes no sense. You appear to have a private definition of
'Darwinian evolution'. If you want to have a discussion about a
technical aspect of science, please learn the vocabulary.
Free Lunch
"NeonmageK" <neon...@cox.net> wrote in
<Pthug.19806$f76.12586@dukeread06>:
>I think you are mistakenly looking at it at the wrong angle. Natural
>Selection is the process by which Darwinist Evolution occurs. New species
>come about by species adapting to the environment via natural selection. For
>it to be otherwise there would have to be a mechanism preventing it. Darwin
>provided adaptations of finches to their environment as evidence backing is
>theory. The specific finch he used is now known as the Darwin Finch. If you
>would like I can try do dig up information about examples of where
>adaptation lead to animals not being able to reproduce with the original
>species if you would like. Invariably if I do someone will start asking me
>to show when a monkey gave birth to a human though hehe.
Humans are great apes. Ignoring the careless language, an ape gives
birth to every human.
Free Lunch
"NeonmageK" <neon...@cox.net> wrote in
<UAlug.19833$f76.2612@dukeread06>:
>All of that has to do with Natural Selection.
The process is called _variation_ and natural selection. The processes
noted below are variation, not natural selection.
Free Lunch
colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44b9a139$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>HiEv wrote:
>> colp wrote:
>>
>>>I think the original article misused the term evolve since it hasn't
>>>been shown that Darwinian evolution occurred in the case of the finches.
>>>
>>>The only new species was the second species on finch that arrived at the
>>>island. The original species adapted to the competetion by it did not
>>>evolve in the Darwinian sense.
>>
>>
>
>Evolution can be used to describe speciation.
Speciation is a result of evolution.
> Speciation is
>> where one species evolves differently, usually due to geographic
>> separation, until one or more groups evolve differently enough from each
>> other to be called separate species or when one species evolves enough
>> over time to be counted as a different species as its ancestors.
>
>> Evolution is change in a group of organisms over time due to various
>> selective pressures. Darwinian evolution encompasses both speciation
>> and non-speciation forms of evolution.
>
>Darwinian evolution requires the advent of species which are unable to
>breed with their ancestors. This has not occurred in the case of the
>finches.
Speciation is the point where populations do not breed with each other.
They may still be genetically capable of interbreeding.
>> So, while a change in beak size to better adapt to the changing food
>> supply is not an example of speciation, it is most certainly an example
>> of evolution in the Darwinian sense.
>
>The case of the finches does not support the Darwinian idea that the a
>new species may arise which is unable to successfully breed with it's
>ancestors.
The ancestors are dead.
>> If you are going to argue that Darwinian evolution only means
>> speciation, then I would point out that even if that were true, your
>> main point is still wrong because the article only said "evolution," not
>> "Darwinian evolution," and evolution clearly has occurred in this case.
>>
>
>Darwinian evolution is implied by the title of the article and the
>reference to "Drawin's finches"
Evolution was observed there.
Free Lunch
colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44ba10d6$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>NeonmageK wrote:
>> It has been shown to be the case. I can provide examples if you would like.
>>
>
>Examples of a species which at some point became another species that
>was no longer able to reproduce with its ancestors? I'd be quite
>impressed if you could show such a case.
I'd be quite impressed if you would stop using your own private
definitions.
Free Lunch
Steamboat <RTu...@detroitlive.net> wrote in
<1djkb255pjm94561o...@4ax.com>:
>On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 10:25:44 GMT, Pastor Dave <zanani...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:43:33 -0400, "NeonmageK"
><neon...@cox.net> spake thusly:
>
>
>>We know that "Finches from finches is finches." Did you intend that
>>statement to be a counter arguement to the example that was given of
>finches
>>evolving? If so, how does it counter anything that was said?
>
>Finches from finches is still finches and does not mean
>that finches will become something other than birds.
>Yet you believe that, for example, birds came from
>non-birds.
What a great parody of the anti-science creationists.
>What has been observed, is microevolution. What you
>believe, is macroevolution and that is not supported by
>finches coming from finches. But for some reason, you
>think that things like a different beak size, means that
>it is true that humans came from non-humans, etc..
Wonderful parody. Too bad it's been done to death.
>Now you can talk about all of the supposed evidence
>that you want, but when it comes down to it, what
>you put forth as observed and repeatable evidence,
>is nothing more than examples of things like finches
>coming from finches.
>
>Goodbye now.
>
>Goodby -- time now, to put your head back into the sand.
TimK
> All of that has to do with Natural Selection.
No. Natural selection changes genes. So do the other processes I listed.
They are four mechanisms of evolution easily read about in any beginning
ecology or evolution text.
NeonmageK
propaganda they obtained form apologetics web sites. I wonder which one they
go by. Kent Hovind maybe?
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:pknkb25ribj5aahn5...@4ax.com...
NeonmageK
"colp" <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message
news:44b9f2db$1...@news.orcon.net.nz...
Sugien
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
<snip>
> Gravity is a fact. It is also a theory. It's quite simple not to confuse
> those, either. You'll have to learn to distinguish between theory and
> facts.
>
Although Gravity is a fact the theory of gravity only explains it's effects
on objects and NOT what it is or how it works; becasue science as of today
does *not* know how gravity works. I dare say if they had a working theory
of *how* gravity worked we would all be using anti-gravity vehicles and the
likes. Gravity is the weakest of the forces and even a small maganet can
over come the *entire* pull of the Earth.
colp
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 13:51:21 +1200, in alt.talk.creationism
> colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44b997ac$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>
>>Libertarius wrote:
>>
>>>colp wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Libertarius wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>colp wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In what way is it a silly idea that the monotremes (platypus and
>>>>>>friends) were created?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>===>Because it is nothing but a fairy tale:
>>>>>A clumsy extraterrestrial named YHWH ELOHIM sculpted the ancestors of all
>>>>>species out of mud and made them alive by blowing air into their noses.
>>>>>(Seee Genesis Ch. 2)
>>>>>THAT is the basis of "creationism".
>>>>
>>>>No it isn't. The creation of the monotremes is based on Genesis chapter
>>>>1, not chapter 2, which relates the account of the formation of Adam.
>>>
>>>
>>>===>Who, according to THAT story, was the first human.
>>
>>While that is the usual interpretation, the first humans were created by
>>the Elohim in chapter one. Chapter one and chapter two are accounts of
>>different events, with different sequences of events according to those
>>two accounts.
>
>
> Which is why the names of the gods changed, right?
Elohim (usually translated as God) is the name of a class of beings.
YHWH (usually translated as the LORD) is the name of a singular being of
that class. Thus the title YHWH Elohim indicates that that being is of
the same class of beings who were responsible for the acts of creation
description in the first chapter of the book of Genesis.
>
>
>>>>The theory of evolution is, in general, promoted as being factual by the
>>>>scientific community.
>>>
>>>
>>>===>That is TOTALLY FALSE!
>>>NO theory is "promoted as being factual".
>>
>>Wrong.
>>
>>Lauran Moran claims that evolution is a fact and a theory.
>
>
> Once again you prove that you will say anything without understanding
> it.
You are wrong.
The term 'evolution' can be used to describe adaption to an environment,
which is a fact, and also to describe the advent of a separate class of
living things through incremental changes, which is purely theoretical.
There are facts of evolution. They have been observed and described.
> A few of the most critical facts are that genetic replication is
> imperfect, adding variation to the population, and that the best adapted
> populations are the ones that survive in a particular ecological niche.
>
Yes.
> The theory of evolution is the model that ties together these facts.
The theory itself does not describe the origins of life on this planet.
In that sense, evolution is not a fact.
>
> Gravity is a fact.
Yes, gravity is an aspect of reality.
It is also a theory.
No it isn't. Newton's theory of gravitation is a theory, or a
descriptive idea, while gravity itself is quite real.
The attribution of multiple meanings to a term makes that term
unsuitable for use in debate, especially when the identification of
meaning is dependant upon a ideologically based interpretation of the
context.
It's quite simple not to confuse
> those, either. You'll have to learn to distinguish between theory and
> facts.
A theory is a description of a reality. The theory may be a completely
accurate description of the facts, or it may not.
The point is that the evolutionists' claim that evolution is a fact is
misleading because of the multiple meanings of the term 'evolution'.
Sugien
"Sugien" <dino...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:SOqdnQLoGY1sICfZ...@adelphia.com...
Oh btw, seeing as how everything God created was mature i.e. Adam and Eve
were adults not children. Trees were fully formed and not saplings. Every
creature formed was an adult. So, seeing that every living thing he created
was created as an adult, why then would people think when he created the
earth that he would create it as a *child* or as a planed that was not an
adult planet? I say that if there is such a thing as evolution it is
because of God being so full of life and creation power that anything he
created would have to have some of that creation power in it's self e.g.,
all the animals would be able to adapt to their cirmstances and any
*mutations* that helped a particular species with what that portion of the
earth had grown up into would of course be carried forth in their children.
IOW, if there is evolution it would be because God created it that way.
I have talked with a lot scientific people and most of them have a
problem with the earth and creation being less then 7 thousand years old.
However quite a lot of them after being explained to them about how the
earth was created as a mature planed see things in a different light;
because an all powerful God *can and did* create everything fully formed and
as a mature creation. Who is to say how old a mature planet is?
--
From the Desk of Paul
/}
@###{ ]::::::Gods word is my Sword::::::>
\}
colp
Yes, but not the Darwinian evolution used to describe the advent of
species which lack the ability to breed with the ancestor species.
colp
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 14:05:20 +1200, in alt.talk.creationism
> colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44b99af3$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>
>>Free Lunch wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 17:16:57 +1200, in alt.talk.creationism
>>>colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44b8765a$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>>>
>>>
>>>>No it isn't. The creation of the monotremes is based on Genesis chapter
>>>>1, not chapter 2, which relates the account of the formation of Adam.
>>>
>>>
>>>Genesis is meaningless here. It is a demonstrable heresy that tells us
>>>that God did this in a short time in a literal fashion. It is a heresy
>>>because it makes claims that are contrary to the physical evidence.
>>>
>>
>>Genesis does not make claims that are contrary to the physical evidence.
>>"Young earth" proponents may interpret it as such, but Genesis clearly
>>states that the Earth already existed before the six day creation occurred.
>
>
> Genesis tells a story, the story is rooted in a cosmology of a fixed
> earth. Trying to claim that the authors Genesis somehow manage to tell
> us about modern scientific discoveries is just as silly as claiming that
> Nostradamus predicted the WTC attack.
What do you mean by "fixed earth"?
>
>
>>>>>>The theory of evolution is not a fact because it has not been proven to
>>>>>>be true.
>>>>>
>>>>>===>You obviously are ignorant of the fact that
>>>>>no theory is ever "proven to be true".
>>>>
>>>>That would only be obvious to someone who suffered from the delusion of
>>>>thinking that they knew what someone else thought, even though it had
>>>>not been stated.
>>>
>>>Your claims are inconsistent with the evidence and with the scientific
>>>method.
>>
>>Which claims, specifically?
>
>
> Silly claims like "the theory of evolution is not a fact".
That isn't a claim, it is a denial.
And it is not a silly denial.
Calling it 'silly' simply highlights the fact that it cannot be proven
that the theory of evolutions is an actual description of the origins of
life on this planet.
>
>
>>Darwinian evolution is not a factual (or accurate) description of the
>>origins of life on this planet.
>
>
> The theory of evolution explains quite well the life we observe on this
> planet today.
No, it does not explain why horses and donkeys do not produce viable
offspring then those two animals are supposed to have a common ancestro
from which they evolved.
It does not explain how life got started on this planet,
> but it never claimed to -- it is dishonest enemies of science who try to
> attack a theory based on something the theory does not say or imply.
The theory may not make that claim, but the theory is promoted as being
factual which it is not.
>
>
>>>>The theory of evolution is, in general, promoted as being factual by the
>>>>scientific community.
>>>
>>>Theories are either accurate or not. They rely on facts for their
>>>development.
>>
>>Yes.
>
>
> Does that mean that you understand how you are wrong when you said that
> "the theory of evolution is not a fact"?
What I meant by that statement was that the theory of evolution is not a
factual description of the origins of life on this plant.
>
>
>>You have demonstrated that you do not know
>>
>>>or understand the facts that the theory of evolution was developed from,
>>
>>In your delusion.
>
>
> I guess not. Learn some science.
Science has its limitations. Specifically, the best that science can do
to explain the origins of life on this planet is the inadequate theory
of Darwinian evolution.
colp
>
> Oh btw, seeing as how everything God created was mature i.e. Adam and Eve
> were adults not children. Trees were fully formed and not saplings. Every
> creature formed was an adult. So, seeing that every living thing he created
> was created as an adult, why then would people think when he created the
> earth that he would create it as a *child* or as a planed that was not an
> adult planet? I say that if there is such a thing as evolution it is
> because of God being so full of life and creation power that anything he
> created would have to have some of that creation power in it's self e.g.,
> all the animals would be able to adapt to their cirmstances and any
> *mutations* that helped a particular species with what that portion of the
> earth had grown up into would of course be carried forth in their children.
Adaption and creation are not the same thing.
> IOW, if there is evolution it would be because God created it that way.
> I have talked with a lot scientific people and most of them have a
> problem with the earth and creation being less then 7 thousand years old.
Justifiably, since Genesis states that the Earth already existed before
the seven day creation occurred.
colp
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 14:09:52 +1200, in alt.talk.creationism
> colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44b99c02$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>
>>nobody has shown that they became unable to breed with the finches from
>>which they supposedly evolved?
>
>
> The finches have evolved. (I have no idea what you mean with your
> private definition of 'Darwinian sense' nor do I care, science has
> enough, well-defined words that we don't need to use special ones that
> are understood only by the writer.) They do not interbreed.
>
Perhaps the reason they do not interbreed with their ancestor species is
because that species is now extinct.
>
>>>You have either misunderstood the meanings of 'species', 'variation', or
>>>'natural selection' or what Darwin wrote about them. You may have
>>>misunderstood more than one of these concepts.
>>
>>False.
>
>
> If you understand those concepts, you are merely being dishonest then.
No, I am identifying a deficiency in the Darwinian theory of evolution,
that of the loss of the ability to interbreed with an ancestor species.
colp
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 14:17:19 +1200, in alt.talk.creationism
> colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44b99dc1$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>
>>Free Lunch wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 16:15:11 +1200, in alt.talk.creationism
>>>colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44b867e0$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>>>
>>>
>>>>HiEv wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I think SJAB1958 is basically right, but some of his reasoning is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Until someone shows that the short-beak finches are unable to produce
>>>>fertile offspring with other finches there is no evidence that the
>>>>short-beak finches have evolved into another species.
>>>
>>>If it were demonstrated that humans and chimpanzees could produce
>>>fertile offspring would you claim that chimps and humans are the same
>>>species?
>>
>>No, I wouldn't.
>
>
> Then why do you make the same statement about finches?
It's not the same statement. The case of the finches involves the
demonstrated advent of a new species, while the case of chimps and
humans does not.
>
>
>>>>I agree that different species can produce offspring (eg horse + donkey
>>>>= mule), but AFAIK these offsping are sterile.
>>>
>>>
>>>Of course plants manage to cross species and create new ones fairly
>>>often. Why do you ignore that?
>>
>>Because the discussion is about finches.
>
>
> Life is life. It all works the same way.
No it doesn't. Animals have the ability to choose a mate, while plants
do not.
colp
origins of life in it's many forms on this planet and that evolution can
be a description of the natural selection which occurs through
competition in an anvironment?
colp
> Look up biogenesis already.
O.K. I accept that you are unable to explain the horse and donkey problem.
It remains that the Darwinian theory of evolution does not explain the
loss of ability of separate species to produce viable offspring.
colp
George W. Bush being a case in point.
colp
If you don't understand the question then you are in no position to make
assumptions about my use of the terms.
The Darwinian theory of evolution describes the advent of new species
through incremental changes. Furthermore, these new species are unable
to reproduce with other species. This theory does not describe the real
situation regarding life on this planet.
Sugien
> Sugien wrote:
>
>>
>> Oh btw, seeing as how everything God created was mature i.e. Adam and
>> Eve
>> were adults not children. Trees were fully formed and not saplings.
>> Every
>> creature formed was an adult. So, seeing that every living thing he
>> created
>> was created as an adult, why then would people think when he created the
>> earth that he would create it as a *child* or as a planed that was not
>> an
>> adult planet? I say that if there is such a thing as evolution it is
>> because of God being so full of life and creation power that anything he
>> created would have to have some of that creation power in it's self e.g.,
>> all the animals would be able to adapt to their cirmstances and any
>> *mutations* that helped a particular species with what that portion of
>> the
>> earth had grown up into would of course be carried forth in their
>> children.
>
> Adaption and creation are not the same thing.
>
>> IOW, if there is evolution it would be because God created it that way.
>> I have talked with a lot scientific people and most of them have a
>> problem with the earth and creation being less then 7 thousand years old.
>
> Justifiably, since Genesis states that the Earth already existed before
> the seven day creation occurred.
What is your reasoning that leads you to the conclusion that Earth already
existed before being created by God? I am quite sure it is not biblical so
what is your point of reference for putting forth your statement ?
--
From the Desk of Paul .
colp
>>>IOW, if there is evolution it would be because God created it that way.
>>> I have talked with a lot scientific people and most of them have a
>>>problem with the earth and creation being less then 7 thousand years old.
>>
>>Justifiably, since Genesis states that the Earth already existed before
>>the seven day creation occurred.
>
>
> What is your reasoning that leads you to the conclusion that Earth already
> existed before being created by God? I am quite sure it is not biblical so
> what is your point of reference for putting forth your statement ?
>
>
My reasoning is that the Earth was already in existence in verse two in
a state of ruin or wilderness. The land which arose after the waters
were gathered together was called the Earth in verse 10.
In Isaiah 40:22 the Earth is referred to an being circluar or spherical,
i.e. the term can refer to the planet as well as a the land masses which
are separated by the oceans.
If the instance of verse two is interpreted to have the same meaning as
in Isaiah then the creation of the Earth in verse one is a different
event to the appearance of the Earth in verse 10.
This interpretation is supported by the fact that if it is correct then
the events of chapter one occur in chronological order, whereas the
conventional interpretation has a haphazard timeline.
TimK
> Free Lunch wrote:
> What do you mean by "fixed earth"?
Static earth at the center of the universe.
> Calling it 'silly' simply highlights the fact that it cannot be proven
> that the theory of evolutions is an actual description of the origins of
> life on this planet.
>
OK, LAST TIME - evolution explains the diversity of life, not the origin.
> No, it does not explain why horses and donkeys do not produce viable
> offspring then those two animals are supposed to have a common ancestro
> from which they evolved.
Actually genetics does, quite well.
Remember - your failure to comprehend something in no way invalidates
anything.
> The theory may not make that claim, but the theory is promoted as being
> factual which it is not.
We know that gene frequencies change. We know that.
Evolution is a fact. Period.
> What I meant by that statement was that the theory of evolution is not a
> factual description of the origins of life on this plant.
That's like saying Renoir's art doesn't sound good.
TimK
> No, I am identifying a deficiency in the Darwinian theory of evolution,
> that of the loss of the ability to interbreed with an ancestor species.
That doesn't even make sense.
Free Lunch
colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44bac575$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 14:05:20 +1200, in alt.talk.creationism
>> colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44b99af3$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>>
>>>Free Lunch wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 17:16:57 +1200, in alt.talk.creationism
>>>>colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44b8765a$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>No it isn't. The creation of the monotremes is based on Genesis chapter
>>>>>1, not chapter 2, which relates the account of the formation of Adam.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Genesis is meaningless here. It is a demonstrable heresy that tells us
>>>>that God did this in a short time in a literal fashion. It is a heresy
>>>>because it makes claims that are contrary to the physical evidence.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Genesis does not make claims that are contrary to the physical evidence.
>>>"Young earth" proponents may interpret it as such, but Genesis clearly
>>>states that the Earth already existed before the six day creation occurred.
>>
>>
>> Genesis tells a story, the story is rooted in a cosmology of a fixed
>> earth. Trying to claim that the authors Genesis somehow manage to tell
>> us about modern scientific discoveries is just as silly as claiming that
>> Nostradamus predicted the WTC attack.
>
>What do you mean by "fixed earth"?
Unmoving, placed on pillars. It has the sun go around it and the sun can
be stopped. Hebrew cosmology is quite entertaining, even if it is wrong.
>>>>>>>The theory of evolution is not a fact because it has not been proven to
>>>>>>>be true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>===>You obviously are ignorant of the fact that
>>>>>>no theory is ever "proven to be true".
>>>>>
>>>>>That would only be obvious to someone who suffered from the delusion of
>>>>>thinking that they knew what someone else thought, even though it had
>>>>>not been stated.
>>>>
>>>>Your claims are inconsistent with the evidence and with the scientific
>>>>method.
>>>
>>>Which claims, specifically?
>>
>>
>> Silly claims like "the theory of evolution is not a fact".
>
>That isn't a claim, it is a denial.
There's a distinction without a difference.
>And it is not a silly denial.
Of course it is. You show us why right here:
>Calling it 'silly' simply highlights the fact that it cannot be proven
>that the theory of evolutions is an actual description of the origins of
>life on this planet.
No one in science claims that the theory of evolution "is an actual
description of the origins of life on this planet." You have set up a
straw man and knocked it over -- but in doing so, you have shown your
lack of knowledge or understanding of science.
>>>Darwinian evolution is not a factual (or accurate) description of the
>>>origins of life on this planet.
>>
>>
>> The theory of evolution explains quite well the life we observe on this
>> planet today.
>
>No, it does not explain why horses and donkeys do not produce viable
>offspring then those two animals are supposed to have a common ancestro
>from which they evolved.
Yes it does. Wherever did you get the idea that it does not? Do you know
anything about genetics? If you do, then your claim was a lie, if you do
not than it was ignorant posturing. Either way, you repeated a
falsehood.
> It does not explain how life got started on this planet,
>> but it never claimed to -- it is dishonest enemies of science who try to
>> attack a theory based on something the theory does not say or imply.
>
>The theory may not make that claim, but the theory is promoted as being
>factual which it is not.
It is accurate. It is based on the facts of evolution. I don't know
exactly what you think you are criticizing, but it appears that you are
just playing with words here.
>>>>>The theory of evolution is, in general, promoted as being factual by the
>>>>>scientific community.
>>>>
>>>>Theories are either accurate or not. They rely on facts for their
>>>>development.
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>
>>
>> Does that mean that you understand how you are wrong when you said that
>> "the theory of evolution is not a fact"?
>
>What I meant by that statement was that the theory of evolution is not a
>factual description of the origins of life on this plant.
And, as I said, no one in science claims it does. Why do you claim it
does?
>>>You have demonstrated that you do not know
>>>
>>>>or understand the facts that the theory of evolution was developed from,
>>>
>>>In your delusion.
>>
>> I guess not. Learn some science.
>
>Science has its limitations. Specifically, the best that science can do
>to explain the origins of life on this planet is the inadequate theory
>of Darwinian evolution.
False. The theory of evolution explains how life has changed over time.
That has been explained to you and you have ignored it. Why do you keep
hammering at the strawman when people have pointed out to you that you
are hammering at a strawman?
TimK
There we agree.
TimK
Genetics explains that.
TimK
> The Darwinian theory of evolution describes the advent of new species
> through incremental changes. Furthermore, these new species are unable
> to reproduce with other species. This theory does not describe the real
> situation regarding life on this planet.
What is a testable definition for "The Darwinian theory of evolution "?
Free Lunch
"Sugien" <dino...@adelphia.net> wrote in
<tradnZPD-ovqXSfZ...@adelphia.com>:
>
>"Sugien" <dino...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>news:SOqdnQLoGY1sICfZ...@adelphia.com...
>>
>> "Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Gravity is a fact. It is also a theory. It's quite simple not to confuse
>>> those, either. You'll have to learn to distinguish between theory and
>>> facts.
>>>
>>
>> Although Gravity is a fact the theory of gravity only explains it's
>> effects on objects and NOT what it is or how it works; becasue science as
>> of today does *not* know how gravity works. I dare say if they had a
>> working theory of *how* gravity worked we would all be using anti-gravity
>> vehicles and the likes. Gravity is the weakest of the forces and even a
>> small maganet can over come the *entire* pull of the Earth.
>>
because we don't understand it as well as we understand evolution, but
the theory of gravity includes explanations of how it works, just as the
theory of evolution explains how it works.
>>>
>>>>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
>>>>
>>>>... as does Richard E. Lenski
>>>>
>>>>"Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can
>>>>explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is
>>>>both a fact and a theory."
>>>>
>>>>http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html
>
>Oh btw, seeing as how everything God created was mature i.e. Adam and Eve
>were adults not children. Trees were fully formed and not saplings. Every
>creature formed was an adult. So, seeing that every living thing he created
>was created as an adult, why then would people think when he created the
>earth that he would create it as a *child* or as a planed that was not an
>adult planet? I say that if there is such a thing as evolution it is
>because of God being so full of life and creation power that anything he
>created would have to have some of that creation power in it's self e.g.,
>all the animals would be able to adapt to their cirmstances and any
>*mutations* that helped a particular species with what that portion of the
>earth had grown up into would of course be carried forth in their children.
>IOW, if there is evolution it would be because God created it that way.
Well, if you're going that far, you might as well claim that God created
the Universe two days ago just as we see it today. There's no way to
disprove it because it is completely outside reality.
> I have talked with a lot scientific people and most of them have a
>problem with the earth and creation being less then 7 thousand years old.
Yes. The evidence tells us that the earth is billions of years old.
>However quite a lot of them after being explained to them about how the
>earth was created as a mature planed see things in a different light;
>because an all powerful God *can and did* create everything fully formed and
>as a mature creation. Who is to say how old a mature planet is?
Which is why we can arbitrarily pick any date and claim that it
happened. Last Tuesday is just as valid as any arbitrary date you claim
if you are claiming that God intentionally misled us about the age of
the universe.
Free Lunch
colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44ba...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
There were different stories that were conflated.
>>>>>The theory of evolution is, in general, promoted as being factual by the
>>>>>scientific community.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>===>That is TOTALLY FALSE!
>>>>NO theory is "promoted as being factual".
>>>
>>>Wrong.
>>>
>>>Lauran Moran claims that evolution is a fact and a theory.
>>
>> Once again you prove that you will say anything without understanding
>> it.
>
>You are wrong.
>
>The term 'evolution' can be used to describe adaption to an environment,
>which is a fact, and also to describe the advent of a separate class of
>living things through incremental changes, which is purely theoretical.
Nonsense. The biological definition of evolution is the change in allele
frequencies in a population over time.
>> There are facts of evolution. They have been observed and described.
>> A few of the most critical facts are that genetic replication is
>> imperfect, adding variation to the population, and that the best adapted
>> populations are the ones that survive in a particular ecological niche.
>>
>Yes.
>
>> The theory of evolution is the model that ties together these facts.
>
>The theory itself does not describe the origins of life on this planet.
>In that sense, evolution is not a fact.
The theory of music does not describe drawings, in that sense, music is
not a fact.
>> Gravity is a fact.
>
>Yes, gravity is an aspect of reality.
>
> It is also a theory.
>
>No it isn't. Newton's theory of gravitation is a theory, or a
>descriptive idea, while gravity itself is quite real.
Evolution is quite real. The theory of evolution explains the
observations about evolution. If you deny that evolution happens, then
you are repeating lies.
>The attribution of multiple meanings to a term makes that term
>unsuitable for use in debate, especially when the identification of
>meaning is dependant upon a ideologically based interpretation of the
>context.
You are the one playing with meanings. I am trying to talk about
evolution (the change in allele frequencies in populations over time)
and the theory of evolution that explains why that happens. If you want
to talk about something else then use the right names for that something
else. Evolution is taken.
>> It's quite simple not to confuse
>> those, either. You'll have to learn to distinguish between theory and
>> facts.
>
>A theory is a description of a reality. The theory may be a completely
>accurate description of the facts, or it may not.
A scientific theory is the best available explanation -- not description
-- of the facts that have been observed.
>The point is that the evolutionists' claim that evolution is a fact is
>misleading because of the multiple meanings of the term 'evolution'.
You are repeating a falsehood. Evolution is a fact. Alleles have been
observed to change in populations over time. You want to change the
definition of evolution to suit your anti-scientific bias. Maybe the
liars at the Discovery Institute will hire you.
Free Lunch
colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44bac8dd$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
You have made false claims about what evolution means and then claimed
victory because the evidence doesn't fit your false claims.
Your dishonesty is astounding.
Free Lunch
colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44bacc8c$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 14:17:19 +1200, in alt.talk.creationism
>> colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44b99dc1$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>>
>>>Free Lunch wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 16:15:11 +1200, in alt.talk.creationism
>>>>colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44b867e0$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>HiEv wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I think SJAB1958 is basically right, but some of his reasoning is wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Until someone shows that the short-beak finches are unable to produce
>>>>>fertile offspring with other finches there is no evidence that the
>>>>>short-beak finches have evolved into another species.
>>>>
>>>>If it were demonstrated that humans and chimpanzees could produce
>>>>fertile offspring would you claim that chimps and humans are the same
>>>>species?
>>>
>>>No, I wouldn't.
>>
>>
>> Then why do you make the same statement about finches?
>
>It's not the same statement. The case of the finches involves the
>demonstrated advent of a new species, while the case of chimps and
>humans does not.
Why not? Humans and the other great apes share common ancestors.
>>>>>I agree that different species can produce offspring (eg horse + donkey
>>>>>= mule), but AFAIK these offsping are sterile.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Of course plants manage to cross species and create new ones fairly
>>>>often. Why do you ignore that?
>>>
>>>Because the discussion is about finches.
>>
>>
>> Life is life. It all works the same way.
>
>No it doesn't. Animals have the ability to choose a mate, while plants
>do not.
What does that have to do with evolution?
Free Lunch
colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44bacd7e$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
Evolution does not explain the origins of life on earth. Evolution does
explain the variations of life on earth.
Free Lunch
colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44bacec1$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>NeonmageK wrote:
>> Look up biogenesis already.
>
>O.K. I accept that you are unable to explain the horse and donkey problem.
There is no 'horse and donkey problem'.
>It remains that the Darwinian theory of evolution does not explain the
>loss of ability of separate species to produce viable offspring.
Learn some genetics before you post more of your ignorance.
Free Lunch
colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44bac237$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
I'm not going to get dragged into your special definitions that have
nothing to do with science. Use the words that scientists use in the way
they use them if you want to talk about science.
Free Lunch
colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44ba...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>HiEv wrote:
>> colp wrote:
>>
>>>TimK wrote:
>>>
>>>>colp wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Darwinian evolution requires the advent of species which are unable to
>>>>>breed with their ancestors.
>>
>>
>> wrong that one is.
>
>O.K. I should have said "breed with a member of their ancestor species"
It is very rare for an ancestral species to still be around long after
the child species has become established. One rare example of speciation
that we see occuring from parent to child species is wolves and dogs.
They are still interfertile.
>> Almost always, with the timescales we're talking about, those ancestors
>> no longer exist to interbreed with.
>
>However multiple descendant species are proposed by the Darwinian
>theory, and the same argument holds.
What arguments? Many closely related species are interfertile even
though they do not normally interbreed.
>> Furthermore, Darwinian evolution in no way requires that what you are
>> claiming.
>
>O.K., That is an inadequacy of Darwin's theory.
No, it's an inadequacy of understanding on your part. Still, the
original theory of evolution is nearly a century and a half old.
Knowledge has improved it. Let's talk about the theory of evolution as
it is understood today.
>> Finally, isn't that like incest or something? ;-D
>>
>Yeah, my bad for taking shortcuts in expressing an argument. :)
>
>>>>It most certainly does not.
>>>
>>>It does if it wants to be a credible explanation for the origins of life
>>>on this planet.
>>
>> You are confusing "evolution" with "abiogenesis." Abiogenesis is about
>> the origin of life, evolution is not. A good clue to that is that
>> Darwin's book was called "The Origin of Species," not "The Origin of
>> Life."
>
>No I'm not. I'm talking about the advent of a separate species from a
>pre-existing one, both being living species.
Sometimes you do, sometimes not. Your criticisms of the theory of
evolution can be divided into two groups: those that have nothing to do
with the theory of evolution and those that are wrong. Some fit into
both. No criticism you have offered is meaningful or accurate.
>> Darwin never claimed he was trying to explain the origins of life on
>> this planet, only a lot about why and how life managed to become what it
>> is today after it appeared.
>
>I agree, however his theory is often promoted as being such an explanation.
By folks looking for a strawman to attack, since the actual science is
far too robust for those ignorant of biology to deal with.
>>>What other scientific mechanism do you think could explain the existence
>>>of different species which are unable to produce fertile offspring?
>>>(eg horse + donkey = non fertile mule)
>>
>> The only scientific mechanism that's needed to explain why two different
>> individuals with sufficiently different genes cannot produce viable or
>> fertile offspring is genetics.
>
>That doesn't address the problem in evolutionary terms, i.e. the
>relationship between competetitive advantage and the loss of
>reproductive ability.
You don't appear to understand speciation.
> Giving you a likely explanation for why
>> two similar enough species exist to produce infertile offspring is,
>> however, something that the theory of evolution can do.
>
>So you say. However, that has not been shown to be the case.
Where did you get that idea?
TimK
> O.K. so we agree that Darwin's theory is not an explanation for the
> origins of life in it's many forms on this planet and that evolution can
> be a description of the natural selection which occurs through
> competition in an anvironment?
Not really. It isn't that evolution isn't an explanation for the origins of
life - that's like saying algebra isn't an explanation for ballet.
Evolution is not an explanation of natural selection either. Natural
selection is one mechanism that supplies the "force", if you will, to change
gene frequencies - and that change is evolution.
colp
> "colp" <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message
> news:44bac575$1...@news.orcon.net.nz...
>
>>Free Lunch wrote:
>
>
>>What do you mean by "fixed earth"?
>
>
> Static earth at the center of the universe.
>
>
>
>>Calling it 'silly' simply highlights the fact that it cannot be proven
>>that the theory of evolutions is an actual description of the origins of
>>life on this planet.
>>
>
>
> OK, LAST TIME - evolution explains the diversity of life, not the origin.
O.K. I'll reprhrase that to: "The theory of evolution does not explain
the existence of species which unable to reproduce with each other.
>
>
>>No, it does not explain why horses and donkeys do not produce viable
>>offspring then those two animals are supposed to have a common ancestro
>>from which they evolved.
>
>
> Actually genetics does, quite well.
> Remember - your failure to comprehend something in no way invalidates
> anything.
The "answer of "genetics" does not address the question in terms of
evolutionary theory.
>
>
>
>>The theory may not make that claim, but the theory is promoted as being
>>factual which it is not.
>
>
> We know that gene frequencies change. We know that.
> Evolution is a fact. Period.
O.K. - but you are still not addressing the issue of the inability to
produce viable offspring.
>
>
>>What I meant by that statement was that the theory of evolution is not a
>>factual description of the origins of life on this plant.
>
>
> That's like saying Renoir's art doesn't sound good.
>
>
Evolution can used to describe micro evolution or adaption, which
happens, and also to describe macro evolution, or the incremental advent
of species which are reproductively incompatible, which does not happen.
TimK
> No it doesn't. Animals have the ability to choose a mate, while plants
> do not.
It's obvious you've never read much about how plants time the ripening of
the female and male parts of their flowers so as to avoid
self-fertilization.
You shouldn't be making such claims, knowing so little about biology.
colp
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:18:57 +1200, in alt.talk.creationism
> colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44bac575$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>
>>Free Lunch wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 14:05:20 +1200, in alt.talk.creationism
>>>colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44b99af3$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 17:16:57 +1200, in alt.talk.creationism
>>>>>colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44b8765a$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>No it isn't. The creation of the monotremes is based on Genesis chapter
>>>>>>1, not chapter 2, which relates the account of the formation of Adam.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Genesis is meaningless here. It is a demonstrable heresy that tells us
>>>>>that God did this in a short time in a literal fashion. It is a heresy
>>>>>because it makes claims that are contrary to the physical evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Genesis does not make claims that are contrary to the physical evidence.
>>>>"Young earth" proponents may interpret it as such, but Genesis clearly
>>>>states that the Earth already existed before the six day creation occurred.
>>>
>>>
>>>Genesis tells a story, the story is rooted in a cosmology of a fixed
>>>earth. Trying to claim that the authors Genesis somehow manage to tell
>>>us about modern scientific discoveries is just as silly as claiming that
>>>Nostradamus predicted the WTC attack.
>>
>>What do you mean by "fixed earth"?
>
>
> Unmoving, placed on pillars. It has the sun go around it and the sun can
> be stopped. Hebrew cosmology is quite entertaining, even if it is wrong.
>
The Earth of Genesis 1:1 is eretz, which is not the same as tebel, the
world which is placed upon a pillar in 1 Samuel 2:8
Why do you think the ancient Hebrew cosmology had the sun revolving
around the earth?
>
>
>>>>>>>>The theory of evolution is not a fact because it has not been proven to
>>>>>>>>be true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>===>You obviously are ignorant of the fact that
>>>>>>>no theory is ever "proven to be true".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That would only be obvious to someone who suffered from the delusion of
>>>>>>thinking that they knew what someone else thought, even though it had
>>>>>>not been stated.
>>>>>
>>>>>Your claims are inconsistent with the evidence and with the scientific
>>>>>method.
>>>>
>>>>Which claims, specifically?
>>>
>>>
>>>Silly claims like "the theory of evolution is not a fact".
>>
>>That isn't a claim, it is a denial.
>
>
> There's a distinction without a difference.
The distinction is that a claim asserts that something is true or
exists, while a denial asserts that it is not the case. A denial can
only be asserted, it cannot in general be proven.
>
>
>>And it is not a silly denial.
>
>
> Of course it is. You show us why right here:
>
>
>>Calling it 'silly' simply highlights the fact that it cannot be proven
>>that the theory of evolutions is an actual description of the origins of
>>life on this planet.
>
>
> No one in science claims that the theory of evolution "is an actual
> description of the origins of life on this planet." You have set up a
> straw man and knocked it over -- but in doing so, you have shown your
> lack of knowledge or understanding of science.
So science has no explanation for the origins of life on this planet then?
>
>
>>>>Darwinian evolution is not a factual (or accurate) description of the
>>>>origins of life on this planet.
>>>
>>>
>>>The theory of evolution explains quite well the life we observe on this
>>>planet today.
>>
>>No, it does not explain why horses and donkeys do not produce viable
>>offspring then those two animals are supposed to have a common ancestro
>
>>from which they evolved.
>
> Yes it does. Wherever did you get the idea that it does not? Do you know
> anything about genetics? If you do, then your claim was a lie, if you do
> not than it was ignorant posturing. Either way, you repeated a
> falsehood.
The term "genetics" does not explain the evolutionary issues.
>
>
>>It does not explain how life got started on this planet,
>>
>>>but it never claimed to -- it is dishonest enemies of science who try to
>>>attack a theory based on something the theory does not say or imply.
>>
>>The theory may not make that claim, but the theory is promoted as being
>>factual which it is not.
>
>
> It is accurate. It is based on the facts of evolution. I don't know
> exactly what you think you are criticizing, but it appears that you are
> just playing with words here.
It is a problem of misnomer. The theory of evolution may refer to
theories about micro evolution as well as theories of macro evolution.
>
>
>>>>>>The theory of evolution is, in general, promoted as being factual by the
>>>>>>scientific community.
>>>>>
>>>>>Theories are either accurate or not. They rely on facts for their
>>>>>development.
>>>>
>>>>Yes.
>>>
>>>
>>>Does that mean that you understand how you are wrong when you said that
>>>"the theory of evolution is not a fact"?
>>
>>What I meant by that statement was that the theory of evolution is not a
>>factual description of the origins of life on this plant.
>
>
> And, as I said, no one in science claims it does. Why do you claim it
> does?
"The Origin of the Species" by Charles Darwin. The book decribes
evolutionary theory.
>
>
>>>>You have demonstrated that you do not know
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>or understand the facts that the theory of evolution was developed from,
>>>>
>>>>In your delusion.
>>>
>>>I guess not. Learn some science.
>>
>>Science has its limitations. Specifically, the best that science can do
>>to explain the origins of life on this planet is the inadequate theory
>>of Darwinian evolution.
>
>
> False. The theory of evolution explains how life has changed over time.
> That has been explained to you and you have ignored it. Why do you keep
> hammering at the strawman when people have pointed out to you that you
> are hammering at a strawman?
Because it is only a strawman to those who understand the limitations of
evolutionary theory. In general people think that Darwin's theory is a
realistic description of the origins of life.
colp
Yes, I am aware of the conflation.
>
>
>>>>>>The theory of evolution is, in general, promoted as being factual by the
>>>>>>scientific community.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>===>That is TOTALLY FALSE!
>>>>>NO theory is "promoted as being factual".
>>>>
>>>>Wrong.
>>>>
>>>>Lauran Moran claims that evolution is a fact and a theory.
>>>
>>>Once again you prove that you will say anything without understanding
>>>it.
>>
>>You are wrong.
>>
>>The term 'evolution' can be used to describe adaption to an environment,
>>which is a fact, and also to describe the advent of a separate class of
>>living things through incremental changes, which is purely theoretical.
>
>
> Nonsense. The biological definition of evolution is the change in allele
> frequencies in a population over time.
What the definition is and how the term is used are not necessarily the
samme.
>
>
>>>There are facts of evolution. They have been observed and described.
>>>A few of the most critical facts are that genetic replication is
>>>imperfect, adding variation to the population, and that the best adapted
>>>populations are the ones that survive in a particular ecological niche.
>>>
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>
>>>The theory of evolution is the model that ties together these facts.
>>
>>The theory itself does not describe the origins of life on this planet.
>>In that sense, evolution is not a fact.
>
>
> The theory of music does not describe drawings, in that sense, music is
> not a fact.
>
>
>>>Gravity is a fact.
>>
>>Yes, gravity is an aspect of reality.
>>
>>It is also a theory.
>>
>>No it isn't. Newton's theory of gravitation is a theory, or a
>>descriptive idea, while gravity itself is quite real.
>
>
> Evolution is quite real. The theory of evolution explains the
> observations about evolution. If you deny that evolution happens, then
> you are repeating lies.
The term evolution can be used to represend different ideas, not all of
which describe reality.
>
>
>>The attribution of multiple meanings to a term makes that term
>>unsuitable for use in debate, especially when the identification of
>>meaning is dependant upon a ideologically based interpretation of the
>>context.
>
>
> You are the one playing with meanings. I am trying to talk about
> evolution (the change in allele frequencies in populations over time)
> and the theory of evolution that explains why that happens. If you want
> to talk about something else then use the right names for that something
> else. Evolution is taken.
Charles Darwin used the term before you did.
>
>
>>>It's quite simple not to confuse
>>>those, either. You'll have to learn to distinguish between theory and
>>>facts.
>>
>>A theory is a description of a reality. The theory may be a completely
>>accurate description of the facts, or it may not.
>
>
> A scientific theory is the best available explanation -- not description
> -- of the facts that have been observed.
Scientific theories are unable to comprehend the actions of divine
beings. When divine beings are involved scientific theories are inadequate.
>
>
>>The point is that the evolutionists' claim that evolution is a fact is
>>misleading because of the multiple meanings of the term 'evolution'.
>
>
> You are repeating a falsehood.
No, I am considering previous use of the term 'evolution'
Evolution is a fact. Alleles have been
> observed to change in populations over time.
In your world. In my world evolution is a name for Charles Darwins
theory of the origin of the species.
You want to change the
> definition of evolution to suit your anti-scientific bias.
False.
Maybe the
> liars at the Discovery Institute will hire you.
You spend a bit of time there, do you?
colp
What definition of evolution have I used which does not match the common
concept of Darwinian evolution?
>
> Your dishonesty is astounding.
It's not dishonestry. I am using the original meanings of the terms
rather than the specialised meanings.
TimK
>
> O.K. I'll reprhrase that to: "The theory of evolution does not explain
> the existence of species which unable to reproduce with each other.
Well, actually, yes it does. You are incorrect.
> The "answer of "genetics" does not address the question in terms of
> evolutionary theory.
Yes it does - those two animals don't have the same number of chromosomes.
Evolution is all about chromosomes.
> Evolution can used to describe micro evolution or adaption, which
> happens, and also to describe macro evolution, or the incremental advent
> of species which are reproductively incompatible, which does not happen.
Look pal, you can't get even the most simple concepts about this correct -
even *after* you are corrected and pointed to references. You ain't
qualified to claim something doesn't happen that is actually being measured
by researchers.
colp
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:49:12 +1200, in alt.talk.creationism
> colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44bacc8c$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>
>>Free Lunch wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 14:17:19 +1200, in alt.talk.creationism
>>>colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44b99dc1$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 16:15:11 +1200, in alt.talk.creationism
>>>>>colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44b867e0$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>HiEv wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I think SJAB1958 is basically right, but some of his reasoning is wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Until someone shows that the short-beak finches are unable to produce
>>>>>>fertile offspring with other finches there is no evidence that the
>>>>>>short-beak finches have evolved into another species.
>>>>>
>>>>>If it were demonstrated that humans and chimpanzees could produce
>>>>>fertile offspring would you claim that chimps and humans are the same
>>>>>species?
>>>>
>>>>No, I wouldn't.
>>>
>>>
>>>Then why do you make the same statement about finches?
>>
>>It's not the same statement. The case of the finches involves the
>>demonstrated advent of a new species, while the case of chimps and
>>humans does not.
>
>
> Why not? Humans and the other great apes share common ancestors.
Not in an evolutionary sense they don't.
>
>
>>>>>>I agree that different species can produce offspring (eg horse + donkey
>>>>>>= mule), but AFAIK these offsping are sterile.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course plants manage to cross species and create new ones fairly
>>>>>often. Why do you ignore that?
>>>>
>>>>Because the discussion is about finches.
>>>
>>>
>>>Life is life. It all works the same way.
>>
>>No it doesn't. Animals have the ability to choose a mate, while plants
>>do not.
>
>
> What does that have to do with evolution?
Animals have a stronger aspect of individuality than plants. You can
graft a plant but you can't graft an animal.
colp
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:58:37 +1200, in alt.talk.creationism
> colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44bacec1$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>
>>NeonmageK wrote:
>>
>>>Look up biogenesis already.
>>
>>O.K. I accept that you are unable to explain the horse and donkey problem.
>
>
> There is no 'horse and donkey problem'.
The horse and donkey problem is that there is no explanation in
Darwinian evolution for the loss of the ability of two descandant
species to interbreed. Genetics can explain the sterility in terms of
chromosome counts but evolutionary theory does not explain how the
different chromonsome counts could be a result of gradual evolutionary
changes.
Free Lunch
"TimK" <tim...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in
<MZAug.3917$cF6....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>:>> O.K. It remains that no solution has been shown to the "horse and
>> donkey" problem.
>
>Oh for christ's sake, a horse and mule have a different number of
>chromosomes.
>It really is that simple.
>
Not exactly. Chromosomes are just a way of allocating genes. Often the
different count in chromosomes comes from a break in the past, but the
break can be ignored. For example, if one chromosome has genes 1-100 on
it and the other organism has two chromosomes, one with genes 1-40 and
one with 41-100, they are biochemically capable of joining.
Free Lunch
colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44ba...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>TimK wrote:
>> "colp" <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message
>> news:44bac575$1...@news.orcon.net.nz...
>>
>>>Free Lunch wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What do you mean by "fixed earth"?
>>
>>
>> Static earth at the center of the universe.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Calling it 'silly' simply highlights the fact that it cannot be proven
>>>that the theory of evolutions is an actual description of the origins of
>>>life on this planet.
>>>
>>
>>
>> OK, LAST TIME - evolution explains the diversity of life, not the origin.
>
>O.K. I'll reprhrase that to: "The theory of evolution does not explain
>the existence of species which unable to reproduce with each other.
Then you are just mistaken. The theory of evolution does include an
understanding of speciation, though, it turns out, nature isn't nearly
as concerned with speciation as humans are. There are a number of
species that could reproduce with each other and plants are completely
annoying in their occasional willingness to create new species from
(natural or human induced) cross fertilization.
>>>No, it does not explain why horses and donkeys do not produce viable
>>>offspring then those two animals are supposed to have a common ancestro
>>>from which they evolved.
>>
>>
>> Actually genetics does, quite well.
>> Remember - your failure to comprehend something in no way invalidates
>> anything.
>
>The "answer of "genetics" does not address the question in terms of
>evolutionary theory.
>
Why not?
>>
>>
>>>The theory may not make that claim, but the theory is promoted as being
>>>factual which it is not.
>>
>>
>> We know that gene frequencies change. We know that.
>> Evolution is a fact. Period.
>
>O.K. - but you are still not addressing the issue of the inability to
>produce viable offspring.
>
There is no issue.
>>
>>>What I meant by that statement was that the theory of evolution is not a
>>>factual description of the origins of life on this plant.
>>
>>
>> That's like saying Renoir's art doesn't sound good.
>
>Evolution can used to describe micro evolution or adaption, which
>happens, and also to describe macro evolution, or the incremental advent
>of species which are reproductively incompatible, which does not happen.
Except that it does happen. Whoever told you otherwise lied to you. I
would guess they were religious folks who kept themselves intentionally
ignorant of science.
Sugien
> Sugien wrote:
>
>>>>IOW, if there is evolution it would be because God created it that way.
>>>> a
>>>>problem with the earth and creation being less then 7 thousand years
>>>>old.
>>>
>>>the seven day creation occurred.
>>
>>
>> What is your reasoning that leads you to the conclusion that Earth
>> already
>> existed before being created by God? I am quite sure it is not biblical
>> so
>> what is your point of reference for putting forth your statement ?
>>
>>
>
> My reasoning is that the Earth was already in existence in verse two in
> a state of ruin or wilderness. The land which arose after the waters
> were gathered together was called the Earth in verse 10.
yes it was in existence in verse 2 because God created it in verse 1
Genesis 1:1 śIn the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
>
> In Isaiah 40:22 the Earth is referred to an being circluar or spherical,
> i.e. the term can refer to the planet as well as a the land masses which
> are separated by the oceans.
>
> If the instance of verse two is interpreted to have the same meaning as
If a grasshopper had a pistol the birds would not try to eat him, iow, they
have not been interpreted to have the same meaning, as far as I can see:
> in Isaiah then the creation of the Earth in verse one is a different
> event to the appearance of the Earth in verse 10.
Of course becasue in verse one it is created as a creation in progress and
the earth it's self was finished by verse 12
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his
kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind:
and God saw that it was good.
Because without the trees and grass and such it would bee only a dirty mud
ball and not a *living* planet; but I guess you could just for the sake of
discussion say that the earth was created by verse 10
>
> This interpretation is supported by the fact that if it is correct then
> the events of chapter one occur in chronological order, whereas the
> conventional interpretation has a haphazard timeline.
I ask what was your reasoning for saying "Justifiably, since Genesis states
that the Earth already existed before the seven day creation occurred"
Seeing as how verse 1 of Genesis says: "Genesis 1:1 śIn the beginning God
created the heaven and the earth." also taking into consideration the other
points I have made I still ask , or in effect say that the earth was created
by God in verse 1 and by verse 12 was finished and was created as an adult
mature planet which who is to say how old that is.
colp
> "colp" <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message
> news:44ba...@news.orcon.net.nz...
>
>>TimK wrote:
>>
>>>"colp" <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message
>>>OK, LAST TIME - evolution explains the diversity of life, not the origin.
>>
>>O.K. I'll reprhrase that to: "The theory of evolution does not explain
>>the existence of species which unable to reproduce with each other.
>
>
> Well, actually, yes it does. You are incorrect.
And the explanation is?
>
>
>>The "answer of "genetics" does not address the question in terms of
>>evolutionary theory.
>
>
> Yes it does - those two animals don't have the same number of chromosomes.
> Evolution is all about chromosomes.
Evolution has no explanation for the different number of chromosomes.
>
>
>
>>Evolution can used to describe micro evolution or adaption, which
>>happens, and also to describe macro evolution, or the incremental advent
>>of species which are reproductively incompatible, which does not happen.
>
>
> Look pal, you can't get even the most simple concepts about this correct -
> even *after* you are corrected and pointed to references. You ain't
> qualified to claim something doesn't happen that is actually being measured
> by researchers.
>
What simple concept do you think that I am mistaken about?
Sugien
Not out side reality really ; but out side the reality of what the
scientific method can comprehend. God is almost by definition outside the
reality of what man scientist or otherwise can measure. The mind of man is
not capable even if he used 100% of it instead 12-15% to understand the
things of God.
>
>> I have talked with a lot scientific people and most of them have a
>>problem with the earth and creation being less then 7 thousand years old.
>
> Yes. The evidence tells us that the earth is billions of years old.
Yes and because God created the Earth as an *adult* Planet it would follow
that tests would prove that out to scientific method. Much the same if the
scientists would have been around to test Adam and Eve they would by all
tests be adults instead of only being created days or hours before.
>
>>However quite a lot of them after being explained to them about how the
>>earth was created as a mature planed see things in a different light;
>>because an all powerful God *can and did* create everything fully formed
>>and
>>as a mature creation. Who is to say how old a mature planet is?
>
> Which is why we can arbitrarily pick any date and claim that it
> happened. Last Tuesday is just as valid as any arbitrary date you claim
> if you are claiming that God intentionally misled us about the age of
> the universe.
He did not *intentionally* mislead us; however, man with his limited
mental capacity (as compared to God) just can not by quantitative methods
devised by scientific method things pertaining to Gods creation let alone to
the person of God himself.
oan, Seeing as how the Bible says that God spoke things into existence, I
find it interesting that scientist now theorize using quantum mechanics,
that the smallest particle of matter is not a particle but rather a
vibrating string, iow, these strings much like a violin string can be
changed into different types of matter by changing the vibrations of the sub
atomic strings. Much like a violin making a different note all using the
same string all these sub atomic strings are the same and form different
types and kinds of matter dependent on the frequencies and harmonics of
these strings. However seeing as how here we are having trouble agreeing on
the simplest of things (God created it all) discussion of quantum mechanic
should not in my humble opinion become a tangent<bg>
--
From the Desk of Paul /}
@###{ ]::::::Gods word is my Sword::::::>
\}
colp
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:27:34 +1200, in alt.talk.creationism
> colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44ba...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
<snip>
>>O.K. I'll reprhrase that to: "The theory of evolution does not explain
>>the existence of species which unable to reproduce with each other.
>
>
> Then you are just mistaken. The theory of evolution does include an
> understanding of speciation, though, it turns out, nature isn't nearly
> as concerned with speciation as humans are. There are a number of
> species that could reproduce with each other and plants are completely
> annoying in their occasional willingness to create new species from
> (natural or human induced) cross fertilization.
Still no explanation of how a species can change it's reproductive
characteristics.
>
>
>>>>No, it does not explain why horses and donkeys do not produce viable
>>>>offspring then those two animals are supposed to have a common ancestro
>>>
>>>>from which they evolved.
>>>
>>>
>>>Actually genetics does, quite well.
>>>Remember - your failure to comprehend something in no way invalidates
>>>anything.
>>
>>The "answer of "genetics" does not address the question in terms of
>>evolutionary theory.
>>
>
> Why not?
Because no ideas related to the actual question are presented.
>
>>>
>>>>The theory may not make that claim, but the theory is promoted as being
>>>>factual which it is not.
>>>
>>>
>>>We know that gene frequencies change. We know that.
>>>Evolution is a fact. Period.
>>
>>O.K. - but you are still not addressing the issue of the inability to
>>produce viable offspring.
>>
>
> There is no issue.
Yes there is. The issue is that evolutionary theory does not explain why
horses and donkeys do not produce viable offspring then those two
animals are supposed to have a common ancestor.
>
>>>>What I meant by that statement was that the theory of evolution is not a
>>>>factual description of the origins of life on this plant.
>>>
>>>
>>>That's like saying Renoir's art doesn't sound good.
>>
>>Evolution can used to describe micro evolution or adaption, which
>>happens, and also to describe macro evolution, or the incremental advent
>>of species which are reproductively incompatible, which does not happen.
>
>
> Except that it does happen.
Proof please.
Whoever told you otherwise lied to you.
Wrong.
I
> would guess they were religious folks who kept themselves intentionally
> ignorant of science.
Wrong again.
colp
> "colp" <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message
> news:44bae551$1...@news.orcon.net.nz...
>
>>in Isaiah then the creation of the Earth in verse one is a different
>>event to the appearance of the Earth in verse 10.
>
>
> Of course becasue in verse one it is created as a creation in progress and
> the earth it's self was finished by verse 12
There is nothing in verse one to suggest that the earth was a work in
progress. Eretz, translated as Earth, can mean the planet, the land
masses of the planet, or a particlar area of land.
<snip>
>
> I ask what was your reasoning for saying "Justifiably, since Genesis states
> that the Earth already existed before the seven day creation occurred"
Because of the geological evidence of a very old planet.
> Seeing as how verse 1 of Genesis says: "Genesis 1:1 貂n the beginning God
> created the heaven and the earth." also taking into consideration the other
> points I have made I still ask , or in effect say that the earth was created
> by God in verse 1 and by verse 12 was finished and was created as an adult
> mature planet which who is to say how old that is.
If the Earth was created as a mature planet, then why would it be
necessary to create it complete with a fossil record of prehistoric
dinosaurs?
Free Lunch
colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44bb1bfb$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:27:34 +1200, in alt.talk.creationism
>> colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44ba...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>
><snip>
>
>>>O.K. I'll reprhrase that to: "The theory of evolution does not explain
>>>the existence of species which unable to reproduce with each other.
>>
>>
>> Then you are just mistaken. The theory of evolution does include an
>> understanding of speciation, though, it turns out, nature isn't nearly
>> as concerned with speciation as humans are. There are a number of
>> species that could reproduce with each other and plants are completely
>> annoying in their occasional willingness to create new species from
>> (natural or human induced) cross fertilization.
>
>Still no explanation of how a species can change it's reproductive
>characteristics.
>
behavioral or genetic causes. You may not understand that, but your
ignorance does not give you the right to make sweeping assertions about
a theory that you have shown yourself to be profoundly ignorant of.
>>
>>>>>No, it does not explain why horses and donkeys do not produce viable
>>>>>offspring then those two animals are supposed to have a common ancestro
>>>>
>>>>>from which they evolved.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Actually genetics does, quite well.
>>>>Remember - your failure to comprehend something in no way invalidates
>>>>anything.
>>>
>>>The "answer of "genetics" does not address the question in terms of
>>>evolutionary theory.
>>>
>>
>> Why not?
>
>Because no ideas related to the actual question are presented.
>
evolution. I have no idea where you get your claim from.
>>>>
>>>>>The theory may not make that claim, but the theory is promoted as being
>>>>>factual which it is not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>We know that gene frequencies change. We know that.
>>>>Evolution is a fact. Period.
>>>
>>>O.K. - but you are still not addressing the issue of the inability to
>>>produce viable offspring.
>>>
>>
>> There is no issue.
>
>Yes there is. The issue is that evolutionary theory does not explain why
>horses and donkeys do not produce viable offspring then those two
>animals are supposed to have a common ancestor.
GENETIC ISOLATION.
Remember -- all species share a common ancestor.
>>
>>>>>What I meant by that statement was that the theory of evolution is not a
>>>>>factual description of the origins of life on this plant.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That's like saying Renoir's art doesn't sound good.
>>>
>>>Evolution can used to describe micro evolution or adaption, which
>>>happens, and also to describe macro evolution, or the incremental advent
>>>of species which are reproductively incompatible, which does not happen.
>>
>> Except that it does happen.
>
>Proof please.
The evidence shows that we share common ancestry with all other
organisms. We are not reproductively compatible with all other
organisms.
> Whoever told you otherwise lied to you.
>
>Wrong.
No, I am not wrong. You are making false claims, claims that are
commonly presented by religious zealots who are offended that they were
not specially made by God.
> I
>> would guess they were religious folks who kept themselves intentionally
>> ignorant of science.
>
>Wrong again.
Then why do you persist in your anti-science creationism?
TimK
> TimK wrote:
>> "colp" <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message
>> news:44ba...@news.orcon.net.nz...
>>
>>>TimK wrote:
>>>
>>>>"colp" <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message
>>>>OK, LAST TIME - evolution explains the diversity of life, not the
>>>>origin.
>>>
>>>O.K. I'll reprhrase that to: "The theory of evolution does not explain
>>>the existence of species which unable to reproduce with each other.
>>
>>
>> Well, actually, yes it does. You are incorrect.
>
> And the explanation is?
Chromosomal aberrations such as fusion and splitting are fairly well
documented.
Read a beginning book on genetics and stop using your own ignorance as some
sort of "proof" against evolution.
>
> Evolution has no explanation for the different number of chromosomes.
That's right, because you simply refuse to open your eyes and learn
something it doesn't exist.
In spite of being told where to look by people who obviously know much more
about this subject than you do, you prefer the darkness of ignorance.
TimK
> Free Lunch wrote:
> Still no explanation of how a species can change it's reproductive
> characteristics.
In the first place skippy, you'll look a little less ignorant if you leave
the apostrophe out of possessive its.
If you would take the time to read a little about this subject you A)
wouldn't look like such a moron., and B) would learn that mutations and
other aberrations can take place and be selected for that change chromosome
number, and that affects fecundity. It happens all the time in plants and
even in humans, although I have no doubt that a moron like you has ever
heard of Klinefelter's syndrome. But don't read about it - it's much
easier for you lot to just stay stupid. So just stay stupid.
TimK
> The theory of evolution does include an
> understanding of speciation, though, it turns out, nature isn't nearly
> as concerned with speciation as humans are.
Well there it is, summed up perfectly well - which box to put an organism in
is a purely human construct.
Nicely stated.
The slopes to the peaks of adaptive landscapes are sometimes steep and
obvious, other times not. Anyone who has laid out a collection of
Plethodontid salamanders attempting to parse where one species ends and the
next begins knows this.
Laypeople who take no time to bother to learn anything have it easy. They
don't know what they deny.
TimK
Forgive me my oversimplifications in dealing with that idiot. Clearly he's
not interested in learning anything.
colp
Klinefelter's syndrome is not an example of a species changing it's
reproductive characteristics because the syndrome in not inherited.
colp
If, by the evidence, you mean the cellular components that are common
amongst all organism, then this is evidence of a common origin, not
necessarily common ancestry.
Occam's Razor applies.
>
>
>>Whoever told you otherwise lied to you.
>>
>>Wrong.
>
>
> No, I am not wrong.
Yes you are. Nobody told me otherwise.
You are making false claims, claims that are
> commonly presented by religious zealots who are offended that they were
> not specially made by God.
What false claims, specifically?
>
>
>>I
>>
>>>would guess they were religious folks who kept themselves intentionally
>>>ignorant of science.
>>
>>Wrong again.
>
>
> Then why do you persist in your anti-science creationism?
Because I favour the truth.
Sugien
> Sugien wrote:
>> "colp" <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message
>> news:44bae551$1...@news.orcon.net.nz...
>>
>
>
>>>in Isaiah then the creation of the Earth in verse one is a different
>>>event to the appearance of the Earth in verse 10.
>>
>>
>> Of course becasue in verse one it is created as a creation in progress
>> and
>> the earth it's self was finished by verse 12
>
> There is nothing in verse one to suggest that the earth was a work in
> progress. Eretz, translated as Earth, can mean the planet, the land
> masses of the planet, or a particlar area of land.
Seeing as how the following verses continue with the creation of the
earth culminating with it's being finished in verse 12, it stands to reason
that it was a work in progress else after the earth was created in verse one
then nothing else would have to be created concerning the earth.
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>> I ask what was your reasoning for saying "Justifiably, since Genesis
>> states
>> that the Earth already existed before the seven day creation occurred"
>
> Because of the geological evidence of a very old planet.
Everything God created was created as an adult. The term "very old
planet" is quite subjective as in compared to what? Who today with what men
know can say with a certainty what is or is not a very old planet? I would
say that the earth was created as a mature or adult planet; because
*everything* else God created was created as an adult. With that in mind to
me it would follow that if everything else was created as an adult why would
the earth be any exception?
>
>> Seeing as how verse 1 of Genesis says: "Genesis 1:1 貂n the beginning
>> God
>> created the heaven and the earth." also taking into consideration the
>> other
>> points I have made I still ask , or in effect say that the earth was
>> created
>> by God in verse 1 and by verse 12 was finished and was created as an
>> adult
>> mature planet which who is to say how old that is.
>
> If the Earth was created as a mature planet, then why would it be
> necessary to create it complete with a fossil record of prehistoric
> dinosaurs?
Firstly, the fossil record in not *proven* I have read about experiments
where recent bones are buried and then dated to be millions of years old.
However I seem to have lost the links to those experiments, and would not
expect you to take it just on my say so. However I can think of several
reasons why it might be necessary to create the world complete with a fossil
record of prehistoric dinosaurs. One verse comes to mind, "2
Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion,
that they should believe a lie"
God being able to see the end from the beginning of course knew about
this point in time when man would be increasing his knowledge. "Daniel 12:4
But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time
of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased."
Also seeing as how time its' self didn't start until "Genesis 1:14
è©›nd God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide
the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for
days, and years:" Who is to say how much *time* as counted by *man* passed
in the interim?
Bob
>>>created the heaven and the earth." also taking into consideration the
>>>other
>>>points I have made I still ask , or in effect say that the earth was
>>>created
>>>by God in verse 1 and by verse 12 was finished and was created as an
>>>adult
>>>mature planet which who is to say how old that is.
>>
>>If the Earth was created as a mature planet, then why would it be
>>necessary to create it complete with a fossil record of prehistoric
>>dinosaurs?
>
>
> Firstly, the fossil record in not *proven* I have read about experiments
> where recent bones are buried and then dated to be millions of years old.
> However I seem to have lost the links to those experiments, and would not
> expect you to take it just on my say so. However I can think of several
> reasons why it might be necessary to create the world complete with a fossil
> record of prehistoric dinosaurs. One verse comes to mind, "2
> Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion,
> that they should believe a lie"
> God being able to see the end from the beginning of course knew about
> this point in time when man would be increasing his knowledge. "Daniel 12:4
> But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time
> of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased."
> Also seeing as how time its' self didn't start until "Genesis 1:14
> days, and years:" Who is to say how much *time* as counted by *man* passed
> in the interim?
>
>
than an allegory. By doing so, you miss 2/3's of the moral lessons that
are within the text. It is just a story, not history, nor science.
You should look at some of the Jewish commentaries, so you can see teh
puns, and the subtle interplay of words that just do not come across in
the english translations. You also should study up about the ANE
culture, so you can see it in context of the early bronze aged people
for whom it was written down.
You will get so much more out of it than worrying about 'the fall', and
"original sin", and all that stuff that reallly isn't in the text, but
was read into it by people of a different age/culture.
Libertarius
colp wrote:
> Free Lunch wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 13:51:21 +1200, in alt.talk.creationism
> > colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44b997ac$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
> >
> >>Libertarius wrote:
> >>
> >>>colp wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Libertarius wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>colp wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>In what way is it a silly idea that the monotremes (platypus and
> >>>>>>friends) were created?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>===>Because it is nothing but a fairy tale:
> >>>>>A clumsy extraterrestrial named YHWH ELOHIM sculpted the ancestors of all
> >>>>>species out of mud and made them alive by blowing air into their noses.
> >>>>>(Seee Genesis Ch. 2)
> >>>>>THAT is the basis of "creationism".
> >>>>
> >>>>No it isn't. The creation of the monotremes is based on Genesis chapter
> >>>>1, not chapter 2, which relates the account of the formation of Adam.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>===>Who, according to THAT story, was the first human.
> >>
> >>While that is the usual interpretation, the first humans were created by
> >>the Elohim in chapter one. Chapter one and chapter two are accounts of
> >>different events, with different sequences of events according to those
> >>two accounts.
> >
> >
> > Which is why the names of the gods changed, right?
>
> Elohim (usually translated as God) is the name of a class of beings.
> YHWH (usually translated as the LORD) is the name of a singular being of
> that class.
===>ELOHIM appears to be the ancient Hebrew equivalent of ALIENS or
EXTRATERRESTRIALS. Gen. 1 says they created everything together, but
Gen 2ff describes an ALTERNATE STORY in which humans and animals are
SCULPTED by one of the Elohim, named YHWH. -- L.
Libertarius
Sugien wrote:
> "colp" <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message
> news:44bac6e1$1...@news.orcon.net.nz...
> > Sugien wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Oh btw, seeing as how everything God created was mature i.e. Adam and
> >> Eve
> >> were adults not children. Trees were fully formed and not saplings.
> >> Every
> >> creature formed was an adult. So, seeing that every living thing he
> >> created
> >> was created as an adult, why then would people think when he created the
> >> earth that he would create it as a *child* or as a planed that was not
> >> an
> >> adult planet? I say that if there is such a thing as evolution it is
> >> because of God being so full of life and creation power that anything he
> >> created would have to have some of that creation power in it's self e.g.,
> >> all the animals would be able to adapt to their cirmstances and any
> >> *mutations* that helped a particular species with what that portion of
> >> the
> >> earth had grown up into would of course be carried forth in their
> >> children.
> >
> > Adaption and creation are not the same thing.
> >
> >> IOW, if there is evolution it would be because God created it that way.
> >> I have talked with a lot scientific people and most of them have a
> >> problem with the earth and creation being less then 7 thousand years old.
> >
> > Justifiably, since Genesis states that the Earth already existed before
> > the seven day creation occurred.
>
> What is your reasoning that leads you to the conclusion that Earth already
> existed before being created by God? I am quite sure it is not biblical so
> what is your point of reference for putting forth your statement ?
"When God began to create heaven and earth--the earth being unformed and void,
with
darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the
water--
God said, 'Let there be light'" etc.
The AUTHENTIC rendering of Genesis 1 by the Hebrew scholars of the JPS TANAKH.
Similarly, in the SECOND, ALTERNATE creation story, the earth is already there,
it just needs water for things to start growing, and the alien YHWH ELOHIM to
make living creatures sculpted out of mud. -- L.
Libertarius
colp wrote:
> Sugien wrote:
>
> >>>IOW, if there is evolution it would be because God created it that way.
> >>> I have talked with a lot scientific people and most of them have a
> >>>problem with the earth and creation being less then 7 thousand years old.
> >>
> >>Justifiably, since Genesis states that the Earth already existed before
> >>the seven day creation occurred.
> >
> >
> > What is your reasoning that leads you to the conclusion that Earth already
> > existed before being created by God? I am quite sure it is not biblical so
> > what is your point of reference for putting forth your statement ?
> >
> >
>
> My reasoning is that the Earth was already in existence in verse two in
> a state of ruin or wilderness. The land which arose after the waters
> were gathered together was called the Earth in verse 10.
>
> In Isaiah 40:22 the Earth is referred to an being circluar or spherical,
===>FALSE!
Circular, like your CD, but not "spherical" -- L.
Libertarius
Sugien wrote:
> "colp" <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message
> news:44bae551$1...@news.orcon.net.nz...
> > Sugien wrote:
> >
> >>>>IOW, if there is evolution it would be because God created it that way.
> >>>> I have talked with a lot scientific people and most of them have
> >>>> a
> >>>>problem with the earth and creation being less then 7 thousand years
> >>>>old.
> >>>
> >>>Justifiably, since Genesis states that the Earth already existed before
> >>>the seven day creation occurred.
> >>
> >>
> >> What is your reasoning that leads you to the conclusion that Earth
> >> already
> >> existed before being created by God? I am quite sure it is not biblical
> >> so
> >> what is your point of reference for putting forth your statement ?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > My reasoning is that the Earth was already in existence in verse two in
> > a state of ruin or wilderness. The land which arose after the waters
> > were gathered together was called the Earth in verse 10.
>
> yes it was in existence in verse 2 because God created it in verse 1
> Genesis 1:1 śIn the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.'
===>That is the wrong translation. The correct translation is
"When God [actually ELOHIM] began to create" it was already there, a formless,
watery mass,
from which the ELOHIM created the universe (inc. Sun. Moon, Stars, etc.) -- L.
Libertarius
Sugien wrote:
===>That is really funny, since ALL gods are created by the human mind. -- L.
Libertarius
TimK wrote:
> "colp" <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message
> news:44b99af3$1...@news.orcon.net.nz...
> >
> > Darwinian evolution is not a factual (or accurate) description of the
> > origins of life on this planet.
>
> Nor was it ever intended to be.
===>There is only EVOLUTION.
It is NOT "Darwinian" or any other -ian.
There is Darwinian THEORY explaining Evolution. -- L.
Free Lunch
colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44bba976$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:28:06 +1200, in alt.talk.creationism
>> colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44bb1bfb$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>>
>> The evidence shows that we share common ancestry with all other
>> organisms. We are not reproductively compatible with all other
>> organisms.
>
>If, by the evidence, you mean the cellular components that are common
>amongst all organism, then this is evidence of a common origin, not
>necessarily common ancestry.
No, I do not.
>Occam's Razor applies.
And it is clear that there is no need to claim that a designer exists.
As a matter of fact, claiming that makes everything far more
complicated.
>>>Whoever told you otherwise lied to you.
>>>
>>>Wrong.
>>
>>
>> No, I am not wrong.
>
>Yes you are. Nobody told me otherwise.
>
I have. Since you have demonstrated that you don't understand or care to
understand science, your arguments are meaningless. Your refusal to
learn is an offense to everyone who cares about life on earth, Christian
and non-Christian alike.
>
>> You are making false claims, claims that are
>> commonly presented by religious zealots who are offended that they were
>> not specially made by God.
>
>What false claims, specifically?
>
You falsely misrepresent what is known about evolution.
>>
>>>I would guess they were religious folks who kept themselves intentionally
>>>>ignorant of science.
>>>
>>>Wrong again.
>>
>> Then why do you persist in your anti-science creationism?
>
>Because I favour the truth.
No you don't. YOU SUPPORT LIES. You worship your ignorance.
Free Lunch
colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44bb...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:18:57 +1200, in alt.talk.creationism
>> colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44bac575$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>>
...
>>>What do you mean by "fixed earth"?
>>
>>
>> be stopped. Hebrew cosmology is quite entertaining, even if it is wrong.
>>
>
>The Earth of Genesis 1:1 is eretz, which is not the same as tebel, the
>world which is placed upon a pillar in 1 Samuel 2:8
>
>Why do you think the ancient Hebrew cosmology had the sun revolving
>around the earth?
I can only rely on the words available to us. If you have a special
understanding then tell us where you got it from. It certainly did not
come from the Old Testament.
...
>>>That isn't a claim, it is a denial.
>>
>>
>> There's a distinction without a difference.
>
>The distinction is that a claim asserts that something is true or
>exists, while a denial asserts that it is not the case. A denial can
>only be asserted, it cannot in general be proven.
>
The problem is that you have not yet been willing to accept that you
have ignorantly conflated facts and theories. The facts of evolution
exist. The theory of evolution comes from those facts. That is a fact
and your denial of it is meaningless.
>>>And it is not a silly denial.
>>
>> Of course it is. You show us why right here:
>>
>>
>>>Calling it 'silly' simply highlights the fact that it cannot be proven
>>>that the theory of evolutions is an actual description of the origins of
>>>life on this planet.
>>
>> No one in science claims that the theory of evolution "is an actual
>> description of the origins of life on this planet." You have set up a
>> straw man and knocked it over -- but in doing so, you have shown your
>> lack of knowledge or understanding of science.
>
>So science has no explanation for the origins of life on this planet then?
Science does not have an explanation that is sufficiently supported by
the facts that they call it a theory. They are modest enough not to
claim things to be true before they have the evidence to support it.
This is different from religious zealots who claim things are true even
when the evidence proves that they are mistaken.
...
>>>No, it does not explain why horses and donkeys do not produce viable
>>>offspring then those two animals are supposed to have a common ancestro
>>
>>>from which they evolved.
>>
>> Yes it does. Wherever did you get the idea that it does not? Do you know
>> anything about genetics? If you do, then your claim was a lie, if you do
>> not than it was ignorant posturing. Either way, you repeated a
>> falsehood.
>
>The term "genetics" does not explain the evolutionary issues.
>
No, the term does not, but the discipline does.
...
>>>The theory may not make that claim, but the theory is promoted as being
>>>factual which it is not.
>>
>>
>> It is accurate. It is based on the facts of evolution. I don't know
>> exactly what you think you are criticizing, but it appears that you are
>> just playing with words here.
>
>It is a problem of misnomer. The theory of evolution may refer to
>theories about micro evolution as well as theories of macro evolution.
What nonsense. Evolution is evolution. The distinction between micro-
and macro- is valid in certain disciplines within evolution, but the
religious zealots who use that distinction have shown that they are
ignorant of that distinction, using it to propagate lies and slanders.
...
>>>What I meant by that statement was that the theory of evolution is not a
>>>factual description of the origins of life on this plant.
>>
>> And, as I said, no one in science claims it does. Why do you claim it
>> does?
>
>"The Origin of the Species" by Charles Darwin. The book decribes
>evolutionary theory.
Yes, it does describe the first comprehensive attempt at evolutionary
theory, one that is surprisingly good considering the amount of new
discoveries in the century and a half since then. What it does not
describe, if you had bothered to read it before misrepresenting it, is
the origins of life on this planet.
...
>>>Science has its limitations. Specifically, the best that science can do
>>>to explain the origins of life on this planet is the inadequate theory
>>>of Darwinian evolution.
>>
>> False. The theory of evolution explains how life has changed over time.
>> That has been explained to you and you have ignored it. Why do you keep
>> hammering at the strawman when people have pointed out to you that you
>> are hammering at a strawman?
>
>Because it is only a strawman to those who understand the limitations of
>evolutionary theory. In general people think that Darwin's theory is a
>realistic description of the origins of life.
That may be true in the United States, we have many ignorant folks here.
The rest of the developed world is actually taught about evolution and
is less confused about it than you are.
Free Lunch
"Sugien" <dino...@adelphia.net> wrote in
<HrydnU-k582TiibZ...@adelphia.com>:
story.
>>
>>> I have talked with a lot scientific people and most of them have a
>>>problem with the earth and creation being less then 7 thousand years old.
>>
>> Yes. The evidence tells us that the earth is billions of years old.
>
>Yes and because God created the Earth as an *adult* Planet it would follow
>that tests would prove that out to scientific method. Much the same if the
>scientists would have been around to test Adam and Eve they would by all
>tests be adults instead of only being created days or hours before.
>>
>>>However quite a lot of them after being explained to them about how the
>>>earth was created as a mature planed see things in a different light;
>>>because an all powerful God *can and did* create everything fully formed
>>>and
>>>as a mature creation. Who is to say how old a mature planet is?
>>
>> Which is why we can arbitrarily pick any date and claim that it
>> happened. Last Tuesday is just as valid as any arbitrary date you claim
>> if you are claiming that God intentionally misled us about the age of
>> the universe.
>
> He did not *intentionally* mislead us; however, man with his limited
>mental capacity (as compared to God) just can not by quantitative methods
>devised by scientific method things pertaining to Gods creation let alone to
>the person of God himself.
It is the Young Earth Creationists and other fake Christians who are
doing the misleading. They are the ones who call God a liar.
>oan, Seeing as how the Bible says that God spoke things into existence, I
>find it interesting that scientist now theorize using quantum mechanics,
>that the smallest particle of matter is not a particle but rather a
>vibrating string, iow, these strings much like a violin string can be
>changed into different types of matter by changing the vibrations of the sub
>atomic strings. Much like a violin making a different note all using the
>same string all these sub atomic strings are the same and form different
>types and kinds of matter dependent on the frequencies and harmonics of
>these strings. However seeing as how here we are having trouble agreeing on
>the simplest of things (God created it all) discussion of quantum mechanic
>should not in my humble opinion become a tangent<bg>
No, Genesis has nothing to do with modern physics.
Free Lunch
>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 10:53:53 +1200, in alt.talk.creationism
>> colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44ba...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>>
...
>>>The term 'evolution' can be used to describe adaption to an environment,
>>>which is a fact, and also to describe the advent of a separate class of
>>>living things through incremental changes, which is purely theoretical.
>>
>>
>> Nonsense. The biological definition of evolution is the change in allele
>> frequencies in a population over time.
>
>What the definition is and how the term is used are not necessarily the
>samme.
If you want to talk about science, it is your responsibility to use
scientific terms correctly.
...
>>>No it isn't. Newton's theory of gravitation is a theory, or a
>>>descriptive idea, while gravity itself is quite real.
>>
>> Evolution is quite real. The theory of evolution explains the
>> observations about evolution. If you deny that evolution happens, then
>> you are repeating lies.
>
>The term evolution can be used to represend different ideas, not all of
>which describe reality.
You seem quite willing to use the term to mean 'pining for the fjords'.
>>>The attribution of multiple meanings to a term makes that term
>>>unsuitable for use in debate, especially when the identification of
>>>meaning is dependant upon a ideologically based interpretation of the
>>>context.
>>
>>
>> You are the one playing with meanings. I am trying to talk about
>> evolution (the change in allele frequencies in populations over time)
>> and the theory of evolution that explains why that happens. If you want
>> to talk about something else then use the right names for that something
>> else. Evolution is taken.
>
>Charles Darwin used the term before you did.
But not the way you are using it.
>>>>It's quite simple not to confuse
>>>>those, either. You'll have to learn to distinguish between theory and
>>>>facts.
>>>
>>>A theory is a description of a reality. The theory may be a completely
>>>accurate description of the facts, or it may not.
>>
>>
>> A scientific theory is the best available explanation -- not description
>> -- of the facts that have been observed.
>
>Scientific theories are unable to comprehend the actions of divine
>beings. When divine beings are involved scientific theories are inadequate.
When there is evidence of the actions of divine beings, we can talk
about that, until then, stick with science.
>>>The point is that the evolutionists' claim that evolution is a fact is
>>>misleading because of the multiple meanings of the term 'evolution'.
>>
>>
>> You are repeating a falsehood.
>
>No, I am considering previous use of the term 'evolution'
No you are not. You are trying to you your personal and misleading
definition of it.
>> Evolution is a fact. Alleles have been
>> observed to change in populations over time.
>
>In your world. In my world evolution is a name for Charles Darwins
>theory of the origin of the species.
The name of the book was "The Origin of Species" not _the_ Species.
Once again, you use your ignorance to try to argue against scientific
observations.
>> You want to change the
>> definition of evolution to suit your anti-scientific bias.
>
>False.
>
>> Maybe the
>> liars at the Discovery Institute will hire you.
>
>You spend a bit of time there, do you?
I look in on them to see what outrageous claims they are making.
Free Lunch
>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:33:28 +1200, in alt.talk.creationism
>> colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44bac8dd$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>>
>>>Free Lunch wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 14:09:52 +1200, in alt.talk.creationism
>>>>colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44b99c02$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>So you are claiming that the finches evolved in the Darwinian sense when
>>>>>nobody has shown that they became unable to breed with the finches from
>>>>>which they supposedly evolved?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The finches have evolved. (I have no idea what you mean with your
>>>>private definition of 'Darwinian sense' nor do I care, science has
>>>>enough, well-defined words that we don't need to use special ones that
>>>>are understood only by the writer.) They do not interbreed.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Perhaps the reason they do not interbreed with their ancestor species is
>>>because that species is now extinct.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>You have either misunderstood the meanings of 'species', 'variation', or
>>>>>>'natural selection' or what Darwin wrote about them. You may have
>>>>>>misunderstood more than one of these concepts.
>>>>>
>>>>>False.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If you understand those concepts, you are merely being dishonest then.
>>>
>>>No, I am identifying a deficiency in the Darwinian theory of evolution,
>>>that of the loss of the ability to interbreed with an ancestor species.
>>
>>
>> You have made false claims about what evolution means and then claimed
>> victory because the evidence doesn't fit your false claims.
>
>What definition of evolution have I used which does not match the common
>concept of Darwinian evolution?
You have invented a false definition of 'Darwinian evolution' that was
never used the way you claim it was.
>> Your dishonesty is astounding.
>
>It's not dishonestry. I am using the original meanings of the terms
>rather than the specialised meanings.
What a lie. You have demonstrated that you do not know how Darwin used
the terms or what he wrote in his book.
Free Lunch
colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44bb0fdd$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:49:12 +1200, in alt.talk.creationism
>> colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44bacc8c$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>>
>>>Free Lunch wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 14:17:19 +1200, in alt.talk.creationism
>>>>colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44b99dc1$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 16:15:11 +1200, in alt.talk.creationism
>>>>>>colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44b867e0$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>HiEv wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I think SJAB1958 is basically right, but some of his reasoning is wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Until someone shows that the short-beak finches are unable to produce
>>>>>>>fertile offspring with other finches there is no evidence that the
>>>>>>>short-beak finches have evolved into another species.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If it were demonstrated that humans and chimpanzees could produce
>>>>>>fertile offspring would you claim that chimps and humans are the same
>>>>>>species?
>>>>>
>>>>>No, I wouldn't.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Then why do you make the same statement about finches?
>>>
>>>It's not the same statement. The case of the finches involves the
>>>demonstrated advent of a new species, while the case of chimps and
>>>humans does not.
>>
>>
>> Why not? Humans and the other great apes share common ancestors.
>
>Not in an evolutionary sense they don't.
>
Yes, they do. The evidence shows us that this is the case. You have no
evidence whatsoever to support your denial.
>>
>>>>>>>I agree that different species can produce offspring (eg horse + donkey
>>>>>>>= mule), but AFAIK these offsping are sterile.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Of course plants manage to cross species and create new ones fairly
>>>>>>often. Why do you ignore that?
>>>>>
>>>>>Because the discussion is about finches.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Life is life. It all works the same way.
>>>
>>>No it doesn't. Animals have the ability to choose a mate, while plants
>>>do not.
>>
>>
>> What does that have to do with evolution?
>
>Animals have a stronger aspect of individuality than plants. You can
>graft a plant but you can't graft an animal.
That is nonsensical.
Free Lunch
colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44bb...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:58:37 +1200, in alt.talk.creationism
>> colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44bacec1$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>>
>>>NeonmageK wrote:
>>>
>>>>Look up biogenesis already.
>>>
>>>O.K. I accept that you are unable to explain the horse and donkey problem.
>>
>>
>> There is no 'horse and donkey problem'.
>
>The horse and donkey problem is that there is no explanation in
>Darwinian evolution for the loss of the ability of two descandant
>species to interbreed. Genetics can explain the sterility in terms of
>chromosome counts but evolutionary theory does not explain how the
>different chromonsome counts could be a result of gradual evolutionary
>changes.
Your claim is false and unsupportable. You seem quite willing to lie
forever.
Free Lunch
"TimK" <tim...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in
<wvLug.4245$cF6....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>:
on an insignificant error to claim that one small error about this makes
all of their lies true.
Free Lunch
colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44bbaaca$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:>> news:44bb...@news.orcon.net.nz...
>>
>>>TimK wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ring species are intersting, but AFAIK all that is claimed is that they
>>>don't interbreed, not that they are genetically incabale of interbreeding.
>>
>>
>> Right, and if you had looked into RIM as I directed you, you'd learn how
>> that will eventually make them unable to interbreed as the genomes become
>> less similar.
>> Fucking Idiot
>>
>>
>
>Ad hominem noted.
He didn't dismiss your argument because of who you are, he dismissed
your argument because you showed that you were wrong. Then he insulted
you because you earned the insult.
That was not an ad hominem.
>Someone's opinion that ring species will eventually be unable to
>interbreed is not physical evidence that a new species can evolve from
>one that it is unable to interbreed with.
You still refuse to acknowledge the definition of species.
You are also dishonest.
Free Lunch
colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in <44bb1373$1...@news.orcon.net.nz>:
>>
>>>O.K. It remains that no solution has been shown to the "horse and
>>>donkey" problem.
>>
>>
>> Oh for christ's sake, a horse and mule have a different number of
>> chromosomes.
>> It really is that simple.
>>
>>
>of chromosomes could have arisen through incremental evolutionary
>changes. There is no competitive advantage for a species to change it's
>number of chromosomes.
Nothing in evolutionary theory requires the number of chromosomes to
remain stable.
Why do you keep making ignorant claims about science instead of learning
about it. You are making a fool of yourself. If you had any pride, you
would have slunk away in embarrassment ages ago. If you were a
Christian, you would have stopped repeating these falsehoods.