Logic dictates that there is a God!

[Maugena]

Fruit Flies

For instance, when I was in school we did the fruit fly experiment. They raised flies in the laboratory. They nuked them, they microwaved them, and they x-rayed them. They got those flies to have mutated babies. They got flies with curled wings. They fly around in circles and couldn’t go anywhere. Flies with red eyes, and white eyes and brown eyes. They got flies with no wings at all! What do you call that? A crawl? Can’t fly. After raising 80,000 generations of flies, they concluded: "well, boys and girls, we have some conclusions to reach. All the mutations that we observed made the fly worse off than great, great, great, great grandpa fly." Good observation. Everything they did to those flies wrecked them. Conclusion: "Flies must have evolved as far as they can go." No, no, no. (Jump, frog, jump.) You’ve got the wrong conclusion. It could be that --- made the flies right the first time. Why do they have to conclude evolution is done?

Note: A word is replaced with dashes in there by me and I'm misquoting maybe.

Generally speaking, all methods mentioned bring more harm to a being than good, so I'd come to the conclusion that this experiement was a failure before it even started.
Well, assuming that the goal was to advance the flies.
Evolution is not necessarily advancement.

[Lionz]

What if there were simply 80,000 generations raised without any nuking or microwaving or x raying? Would end up with even less change and no mutation that would make passing on genes easier maybe. How many generations do we need to see evidence for macroevolution?

[tzor]

I'm sorry... did you happen to read the same things that I read? Or do you have selective reading so you can formulate an argument based off a fabricated premise?
I'll hold your hand for this one.

The best we can come up with is to say that God and therefore the universe have always been here. This actually seems to be what sicence indicates.

At any rate, it does nothing to either prove or disprove God. However, I am always comforted when science, again, confirms what I know to be true from the Bible.

Player never claimed that "God" wasn't always there.

But she IS saying that scripture's account of the CREATION of the heavens and the Earth is wrong and that her scientific view of "it always having existed" is correct. Quite the opposite in reality.

While (the bolded part) that may be, Snowden's accusation was still incorrect.

No they are not the same; let's compare them side by side.

The best we can come up with is to say that God and therefore the universe have always been here.
But she IS saying that scripture's account of the CREATION of the heavens and the Earth is wrong and that her scientific view of "it always having existed" is correct.


"The universe" is not the same as "the heavens and the earth." One can argue that the universe is "the heavens" but then again, even that too is abusing the system.

"In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters."

(The abyss: the primordial ocean according to the ancient Semitic cosmogony. After God's creative activity, part of this vast body forms the salt-water seas (Genesis 1:9-10); part of it is the fresh water under the earth (Psalm 33:7; Ezekiel 31:4), which wells forth on the earth as springs and fountains (Genesis 7:11; 8:2; Proverb 3:20). Part of it, "the upper water" (Psalm 148:4; Daniel 3:60), is held up by the dome of the sky (Genesis 1:6-7), from which rain descends on the earth (Genesis 7:11; 2 Kings 7:2, 19; Psalm 104:13). A mighty wind: literally, "a wind of God," or "a spirit of God"; cf Genesis 8:1.) New American Bible

[Lionz]

Maybe macroevolution can be defined more than one way. How many generations do we need to turn a fly into a non-fly?

[Lionz]

Genesis 2:5. There were plants on the earth in a time when He had not yet caused it to rain upon the earth maybe.

[Maugena]

What if there were simply 80,000 generations raised without any nuking or microwaving or x raying? Would end up with even less change and no mutation that would make passing on genes easier maybe. How many generations do we need to see evidence for macroevolution?

Who knows.
Red eyes, white eyes, etc., are but a single step.
By the sounds of it, they nuked them into oblivion.
If it wasn't such a harmful process that they were using, the species that differed from the originals could have gone off to produce a species that had gone through more than just a change in eye color.
They need to re-evaluate their evolving process and try again.

[Maugena]

No they are not the same; let's compare them side by side.

The best we can come up with is to say that God and therefore the universe have always been here.
But she IS saying that scripture's account of the CREATION of the heavens and the Earth is wrong and that her scientific view of "it always having existed" is correct.


"The universe" is not the same as "the heavens and the earth." One can argue that the universe is "the heavens" but then again, even that too is abusing the system.

"In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters."

(The abyss: the primordial ocean according to the ancient Semitic cosmogony. After God's creative activity, part of this vast body forms the salt-water seas (Genesis 1:9-10); part of it is the fresh water under the earth (Psalm 33:7; Ezekiel 31:4), which wells forth on the earth as springs and fountains (Genesis 7:11; 8:2; Proverb 3:20). Part of it, "the upper water" (Psalm 148:4; Daniel 3:60), is held up by the dome of the sky (Genesis 1:6-7), from which rain descends on the earth (Genesis 7:11; 2 Kings 7:2, 19; Psalm 104:13). A mighty wind: literally, "a wind of God," or "a spirit of God"; cf Genesis 8:1.) New American Bible

I don't know if you're addressing me, but, if so, a key part of my response to jay_a2j was... "may".
I'm not going to argue with you.

[Lionz]

How about someone simply raise billions of generations of fruit flies and see if they ever get a non-fly? Here's an image showing ants in amber that can help you figure out what would happen maybe...

[2dimes]

So if a trait becomes dominant amongst a population, that's not evolution?
That, actually, is exactly what evolution is.

Genetics. When I speak of evolution I speak of the belief of one species of animal becoming another. I have no problem with certain side issues that have nothing to do with an ape becoming a man. Things like genetics, adaptation etc. But if you want to continue to say that "brown eyes are dominate" thus evidence of evolution (an ape becoming a man), I'm going to have to respectfully disagree.

I'm sorry, jay_a2j, but you'll have to define for me when one species becomes another. Because honestly, I don't think you can.
I fully understand my stance on evolution.
Evolution comes with reproduction.
On the smallest scale, the next generation is evolved.
The reason why you can't see evolution is because you're looking for drastic changes in a single leap.
That just doesn't happen.

In order for such a thing to happen, the DNA in the sperm and egg of a human would have to be considerably fucked up.
Assuming that the sperm and egg are capable of creating a living being, despite being fucked up, the new being would have to be able to reproduce, for one, and be able to live long enough to see reproduction at least once in its lifetime.
Now hopefully the offspring would be more than a single creature-if the original creature only reproduced a single time, so it could have the potential to make a species of its own.
/endramble

Humans only produce a new generation within a general span of 15-50 years.
In order for you to see a drastic change in appearance in the species, you would probably have to outlive a dozen plus generations.
As for smaller scale organisms that reproduce at a faster rate, evolution is very, very, apparent.

Honestly though, I'll give you another example because I doubt you got anything from that.
You say that a specific trait that becomes dominant cannot be evolution.
Why then would we have multiple types of human beings if it cannot be evolution?
White people genetically have color-less skin?
Black people genetically have dark skin?
Or perhaps there were only black people to begin with and then a few black people started moving north, had their skin become paler over some time to the point that it was a dominant feature in a particular region?
Seriously.
How do you define one creature being different from another? How do you classify a species?
If black != white, they must be different.
One or the other must have evolved to have lighter/darker skin. To what purpose? Who knows.
The point is that difference came from evolution. It's a smaller scale compared to just plain old monkeys, but it's there nonetheless.
So accept it and move on.

Which one is further evolved from the monkeys, color-less skinned people or dark?

[jonesthecurl]

We didn't evolve from monmeys. we are a type of ape.

[Lionz]

What in the fossil record suggests humans and chimps share a common ancestor? How about pull out your most convincing example if you have more than one?

[jay_a2j]

We didn't evolve from monmeys. we are a type of ape.

No, you may be a "type of ape". I am a human created in God's own image.

[Snorri1234]

We didn't evolve from monmeys. we are a type of ape.

No, you may be a "type of ape". I am a human created in God's own image.

God has an appendix?

[Frigidus]

We didn't evolve from monmeys. we are a type of ape.

No, you may be a "type of ape". I am a human created in God's own image.

God has an appendix?

Maybe he's not as perfect as we thought.

[jrl332005]

So if a trait becomes dominant amongst a population, that's not evolution?
That, actually, is exactly what evolution is.

Genetics. When I speak of evolution I speak of the belief of one species of animal becoming another. I have no problem with certain side issues that have nothing to do with an ape becoming a man. Things like genetics, adaptation etc. But if you want to continue to say that "brown eyes are dominate" thus evidence of evolution (an ape becoming a man), I'm going to have to respectfully disagree.

I'm sorry, jay_a2j, but you'll have to define for me when one species becomes another. Because honestly, I don't think you can.
I fully understand my stance on evolution.
Evolution comes with reproduction.
On the smallest scale, the next generation is evolved.
The reason why you can't see evolution is because you're looking for drastic changes in a single leap.
That just doesn't happen.

In order for such a thing to happen, the DNA in the sperm and egg of a human would have to be considerably fucked up.
Assuming that the sperm and egg are capable of creating a living being, despite being fucked up, the new being would have to be able to reproduce, for one, and be able to live long enough to see reproduction at least once in its lifetime.
Now hopefully the offspring would be more than a single creature-if the original creature only reproduced a single time, so it could have the potential to make a species of its own.
/endramble

Humans only produce a new generation within a general span of 15-50 years.
In order for you to see a drastic change in appearance in the species, you would probably have to outlive a dozen plus generations.
As for smaller scale organisms that reproduce at a faster rate, evolution is very, very, apparent.

Honestly though, I'll give you another example because I doubt you got anything from that.
You say that a specific trait that becomes dominant cannot be evolution.
Why then would we have multiple types of human beings if it cannot be evolution?
White people genetically have color-less skin?
Black people genetically have dark skin?
Or perhaps there were only black people to begin with and then a few black people started moving north, had their skin become paler over some time to the point that it was a dominant feature in a particular region?
Seriously.
How do you define one creature being different from another? How do you classify a species?
If black != white, they must be different.
One or the other must have evolved to have lighter/darker skin. To what purpose? Who knows.
The point is that difference came from evolution. It's a smaller scale compared to just plain old monkeys, but it's there nonetheless.
So accept it and move on.

Which one is further evolved from the monkeys, color-less skinned people or dark?

What you are implying is just wrong. Maugena was not saying that one race is more or less evolved than another. Each race evolved certain traits that helped them in their seperate environments. Humans that evolved in Africa evolved dark skin tones because of the extreme amounts of harsh sunlight that burns lighter skin tones more easily. While those of European decent have lighter skin because their ancenstors lived in areas that did not experience the same amount of harsh sunrays.

[Lionz]

Is someone trying to suggest the human appendix is vestigial?

http://amazingdiscoveries.org/AD-Newsle ... ument.html

http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/slid ... de0688.htm

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/vestigial.asp

[Frigidus]

Is someone trying to suggest the human appendix is vestigial?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/vestigial.asp

I'm just trying to figure out in what way we are "made in God's image".

[jay_a2j]

Each race evolved certain traits that helped them in their seperate environments. Humans that evolved in Africa evolved dark skin tones because of the extreme amounts of harsh sunlight that burns lighter skin tones more easily. While those of European decent have lighter skin because their ancenstors lived in areas that did not experience the same amount of harsh sunrays.

THIS is man's explanation. Scripture tells a different story. There was at one time only one race, one tongue ... until God "scattered" man all over the earth giving them different races and different tongues. Read up on the Tower of Babel.

[daddy1gringo]

Which brings up something I have always wondered about. Since material of darker color absorbs more light and heat from the sun, and material of lighter color reflects more, why is darker skin better adapted to sunny climates and pale skin to cold ones?

For the record, this is not an attempt at disproving evolution. I don't believe in it for reasons stated in other threads, but my faith doesn't depend on that. If it ever were actually proven, I would just need to adjust my theology about the relationship of physical and spiritual death, and maybe a little about what is literal and what is figurative in the Bible. It wouldn't be the first time I have adjusted my theology.

[Frigidus]

THIS is man's explanation. Scripture tells a different story. There was at one time only one race, one tongue ... until God "scattered" man all over the earth giving them different races and different tongues. Read up on the Tower of Babel.

Gee, interesting. Hey, could you hit me with some non-religious texts that I might peruse that I might educate myself on how the Tower of Babel totally existed?

[daddy1gringo]

Each race evolved certain traits that helped them in their seperate environments. Humans that evolved in Africa evolved dark skin tones because of the extreme amounts of harsh sunlight that burns lighter skin tones more easily. While those of European decent have lighter skin because their ancenstors lived in areas that did not experience the same amount of harsh sunrays.

THIS is man's explanation. Scripture tells a different story. There was at one time only one race, one tongue ... until God "scattered" man all over the earth giving them different races and different tongues. Read up on the Tower of Babel.

Either way, whether by natural selection or by intention of a Creator, skin color correlates to climate and presumably helps the person to live in their environment.

[Lionz]

Frig,

There are a number of ancient sources referring to the tower that you can learn about with wikipedia and creationwiki maybe.

http://creationwiki.org/Tower_of_Babel#Philology
http://creationwiki.org/Tower_of_Babel#History
http://creationwiki.org/Tower_of_Babel#Archaeology

[AAFitz]

Frig,

There are a number of ancient sources referring to the tower that you can learn about with wikipedia and creationwiki maybe.

http://creationwiki.org/Tower_of_Babel#Philology
http://creationwiki.org/Tower_of_Babel#History
http://creationwiki.org/Tower_of_Babel#Archaeology

perhaps you cant learn anything on creationwiki maybe?

[Lionz]

Is there a references section source here that you consider not valid?

http://creationwiki.org/Tower_of_Babel

And did you search Tower of Babel with wikipedia? See a section called In Other Sources and a section called Comparable mythemes?

[jonesthecurl]

What was God afraid of?

And if there is no antediluvian archaeological evidence what are those carvings of dinsaurs you keep showing us?