Rat the size of a car

[bzmomo7]

"Micro" evolution is a demonstrable fact, though it's better known as "speciation" or "adaptation." God created a lot of genetic information in each organism for it to produce offspring more suited to the climate it found itself in. However, proponents of the evolution "theory" take this "micro" evolution and say it proves their pipe dream "macro evolution," which they say is the way dinosaurs evolved into mammals and the like. That's what they do: they take ONE demonstrable, scientifically observable fact and twist it to make it look like their entire garbage heap is true.

Here are some other evolution systems that Evolutionists push:

Cosmic evolution, the birth and growth of the universe
Atomic evolution, supposedly the means of helium and proto-hydrogen evolving into more complex elements
Molecular evolution, also known as "abiogenesis" or life arising from nothing

There are more, but these are a few off the top of my head. Evolution is the most unscientific slop ever conceived by man, and only a fool could think that Evolution and the Bible are reconcilable. God made everything that is in this earth and the heaven in 6 literal 24-hour days. No evolution other than simple diversity of species; dogs don't turn into pigs, even with that magical "millions and millions of years" nonsense.

Thank you, MC, for that clarification. Because I didn't get the impression the previous poster that I posted after was speaking of adaptation.

[bzmomo7]

Hmmmmm, there is a lot in your post. As you so nicely admitted above in red, evolution is just that--a THEORY. I happen to think it isn't very scientific either! Sure, I'm a stay at home mom, but I'm married to a scientist......he spent 12 years working in neuroscience, has presented at national neuroscience meetings and has several published papers in his field for scientific research. He is currently a lab manager in a cancer research center and oversees several post-docs. He is hardly an ignoramus. He has also worked under other lead scientists who DO NOT believe in evolution either--though they were NOT Christians or religious in any way.....why? because evolution is just a theory! It can't be proven. It is not observable, testable or repeatable. There are way too many problems with the holes in it and lack of proof. If they don't want to teach Creationism in schools, fine, but take out evolution, too. I'm surprised we are having this conversation on a IFB board.............if you believe the Bible, then Creationism is not a mere belief.....you know it is a fact. Obviously, you can't repeat it because YOU are not God.

[Alimantado]

"Micro" evolution is a demonstrable fact' date=' though it's better known as "speciation" or "adaptation."[/quote']

I'm glad we agree then that a knowledge of microevolution/adaptation/whatever-you-wanna-call-it is useful for various things. The model of gene frequencies changing between populations is the same, and it is this model that has practical applications.

I won't comment on the other stuff you've posted, as I have no interest in a debate about origins. You did make two interesting points earlier though, which I responded to. Care to comment?

[bzmomo7]

This is a bit off topic' date=' but...the theory isn't just about origins. If your children want to get a job in any field that's concerned with population genetics then they'll need to know about evolutionary theory; ecology, virology, that sort of thing. It yields practical results in those kind of fields. Even many young-earth-Creationists are proponents of what some call 'micro' evolution.

It also fosters confusion and a great deal of spent resources of a company when they go looking for a genetic sequence in a certain animal that they think correlates to a sequence in the human genome--because of course, "humans evolved from that animal.............so of course, it's there.....we just have to find it!" What nonesense. Do you know how much time and effort goes into research into drosophila (fruit fly) genomics because of that? When you start with faulty assumptions, it leads you down the wrong path. Much scientific discovery is by accident or the result of proving their theories wrong.

[bzmomo7]

My above statement is not to say adaptation isn't profitable in studying biology, but evolution as a whole can cause us to look in the wrong direction for answers and to make wrong assumptions. Know what I mean?

[Guest Guest]

if you believe the Bible' date=' then Creationism is not a mere belief.....you know it is a fact.[/quote']

I have faith it is a fact. I don't know anything that can't be proven. That would be irrational.

Very much like creationism, which also can't be proven. The theory of evolution's value can be found in the scientific endeavor that it has caused. There is an abundance of research and test surrounding evolution. Just because those test have yet to yield a positive result does not mean that we can't learn from them. As I said ealier, evolution is valuable if for the sole reason that it is an example of a scientific theory that has been greatly researched and tested. Which is very different from creationism, which can't be tested or researched.

[qwerty guy]

:hijack: what happened to my mouse car????

Lol, to address some quick things I saw here:
Evolution in racist form is still being used today to justify genocide. Hitler of course would be the biggy, but Turkey, Iraq, and other countries in our life time have committed genocide against "lower" humans. Iran right now echoes hitler in calling the Jews half ape. Biblically, we all stem from Noah, and this is all garbage. BTW, someone mentioned genom data, and the human genome shows a bottleneck about 6000 years ago.. that would be about the time of the flood.

Evolution at the root, cannot be called a scientific theory, because it does not fall under the scientific rules for a theory. It cannot be tested, reproduced, and you cannot test against it. This by the very rules of science disallows it of being a scientific theory, and it falls under the label of religion.

That causes the real problem: You need a private school to teach biblical origins, but public tax dollars in huge amounts go toward the teaching and research of the religion of evolution. I really don't care if someone wants to teach evolution, but go open your own school to do so and stop using my tax dollars to teach a humanistic religion to people, especially under the cloak that it's "science".

Lets also define something: Creation "science" is just "science" but with no slant or some slant toward biblical timelines. An "evolution" science will find dinosaur bones, and claim them to be 100,000,000 years old. A Creation science will find those same bones, and say quite honestly that we have no idea how old they are. I've found that creation scientists are very easy to confess when they don't know something, while a secular evolutionist will just spout off a couple theories, maybes, and finish with a "I think". It's the by-product of uniformest thinking.

[bzmomo7]

Well, then, if you believe in evolution, you must be "irrational". :lol:

[Guest Guest]

I never said I believed in the evolution of humans, just that I thought it had scientific value.

[282Mikado]

I agree that there are holes in the evolutionary theory and I am not neccesarily a proponent of it. However' date=' I think it would be taking things a little far to teach "creationism" as a science, when that in fact is not what it is. "Creationism" is a matter of our faith. We can't prove it, just like we can't prove that God even exist. That is why I don't believe it has any place in a public school science class. If and when I have children, I want them to learn science in science class and "creationism" in Sunday school and at home. It is vainful to try and turn an aspect of ones religion in to a science just because you perceive another using science to discredit your religion. And I don't believe that the scientific community's rejection of "creationism" has anything to do with it being a christian belief. It's not accepted because its not science, plain and simple. God is a mystery. His creation is a mystery. His Son's earthly birth is a mystery. We will never understand God's mysteries to a point of science because we ourselves are not God. The theory of evolution has value whether you believe its end result or not. It is an excellent application of the scientific method and can be used as an example/teaching tool of such. It is well documentd and substantiated on several levels (I am of course not speaking to the evolution of humans, but the evolution of some animals). And just like all scientifc theories, it reflects what people thought at the time of its proposal. As the study progressed those thoughts changed, which is why evolution is no longer used to prove that blacks are inferior to whites. People keep bringing up Darwin as if he is the only person that ever espoused an evolutionary theory. While he may be the father of the theory, what he actually believed about it is no longer relevant. Mordern evolutionary theorist base their conclusions on research and sceintific studies, not what Darwin said.

If it is so well documented then you will have no difficulty showing us positive PROOF of one species evolving into another.

By the way this is what the word science means:

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Creation fits into these definitions as well as or better than evolution. Nothing from the Bible has ever been disproved, and scientists from many different fields have tried, but I know of many theories espoused by evolutionists that have been proven false. It seems to me that if scientists tried spending as much time trying to figure this universe out from a creationist viewpoint, they may actually get better results.

[Guest Guest]

If it is so well documented then you will have no difficulty showing us positive PROOF of one species evolving into another.

This is of course a trap question. As a reasonable and intelligent human, you well know that something of such complexity is incapable of being demonstrated on an internet message board (at least not in a timely and efficient manner). Also, I don't think I have been very clear. When one says "theory of evolution" they useually mean the evolution of humans from some subspecies. While this is a part of the theory, it is not the only part. It is much more complex than that.

The most documented example I have personally read about is the evolution of wolfs into dogs. I don't remember all the details but the study was convincing enough for me. I don't have any knowledge of any biological community that doesn't accept that particular example.

I like how you gave a general definition of the word science. That's a good thing. We need credible objective sources to confirm what we say and believe. However, I would'nt just rely on some general definition of any word. The dictionary never takes into account the context or culture in which a certain word is used. One of the first things I remeber being told freshman year of college is, "never rely on what Mr. Webster says, because he had no idea what you were talking about when he compiled his dictionary." No offense, but I can't stand it when people cite general dictionaries to define a word when they, as an intelligent human, know there is always more to it than that. It's almost offensive that someone would believe that such an elementary definition can be used to discredit such a complex field of study. Evolution is a science, it's just not a successful science (or at least not in the context that some Christians care about).

[Alimantado]

My above statement is not to say adaptation isn't profitable in studying biology' date=' but evolution as a whole can cause us to look in the wrong direction for answers and to make wrong assumptions. Know what I mean?[/quote']

Yes, I can see your point there.

[Alimantado]

Evolution in racist form is still being used today to justify genocide. Hitler of course would be the biggy' date=' but Turkey, Iraq, and other countries in our life time have committed genocide against "lower" humans.[/quote']
No-one disagrees with this. There's no doubt the theory of evolution inspired eugenics, which is what some of these genocides have been based on. All sorts of things have been used to justify both genocide and ideas about 'inferior' races. Religion has been used too. But the claim earlier was that "evolution in racist form" is still being taught in schools- and it is specifically this that I am interested in seeing backed-up.


Creation science is slanted toward the idea that the world was intelligently created- that's why it's got 'creation' in the title. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that of course, but that's how it is. If a Creation scientist finds bones and says "I've no idea how old these are," then he's just a man that's saying he doesn't know how old they are; whether he's a Creationist is irrelevant to the statement he's making. If Creationism was the idea that 'we don't know how old things are', then it wouldn't be able to claim that the Earth was young.

[282Mikado]

Evolutionary Theory for making a universe:
Nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 natural elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order.

Evolutionary Theory for life:
Dirt + water + time = living creatures.

The theory goes that the above two formulas can enable everything about us to make itself - with the exception of man made things such as cars or buildings. Complicated things such as wooden boxes with nails in them, require thought, intelligence, and careful workmanship. Everyting else about us in nature such as birds and the human eye, is the result of accidental mishaps, random confusion, and time. You will not need raw materials to begin with as they make themselves too.

Your right Jon, when it comes to Evolution as a science the definition I gave was to simple. It should have added:

Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through fabrication and imagination.

I like Chuck Missler's analogy of a watch in the sand. You find a watch buried somewhere and try to convince someone that it just became through random chance, you would be a solid candidate for the funny farm. Tell someone that is how all living beings came about and you are given an award and grant money.

Maybe I am too simple, but you know...all those evolutionary scientists have college degrees without number and they're still crawling in the swamp looking for their daddy.

[bzmomo7]