Creation AND Evolution

[Shredderbeam]

Can you show me where God promotes the sale of children?

Google it.

Parts of the Old Testament become irrelavent after Jesus.

Oh, only parts did? How do you determine which parts?

So a random mutation has a possibility of happening for the benefit of the creature, then the creature has a possibility of passing it on, and then considering that it does get passed on, it then all gazelles will breed it should pass on. Other gazelles without the gene, then die off, because of predators ect.?

That's part of it, yes.

If it wont happen in one life spand whats the difference of 1 million?

Differences compound over one million generations.

I find this interesting though

Recent advances in molecular biology have allowed scientists to recover ancient DNA encased in amber. This DNA can be amplified many millions of times using a technique called polymerase chain reaction. Although we are not at the level of sophistication seen in the popular movie Jurassic Park, scientists have been able to recover ancient DNA and determine genetic sequences from biological specimens preserved in amber (1). Recently (May, 1995), scientists were able to recover intact, live bacteria from the stomach of a 25 million year old species of extinct bee (2). This was possible because the bacteria recovered are part the genus Bacillus, which form spores under adverse conditions (i.e., being trapped in a dead bee encased in amber). The ancient bacteria have been grown and compared to the same species alive today (which also lives in the stomachs of modern bees). The results of genetic analysis show that the ancient Bacillus sphaericus differ from the current species by only 6.7%. This is a remarkable discovery, since these bacteria have had 25 million years to "evolve." Since bacteria have a generation time of minutes to hours, this period of time corresponds to over 200 billion generations. How then could we humans have changed by 1-2% in DNA content compared to chimpanzees in at most 300,000 generations? Evolutionists have already began to make excuses to avoid the implications of this new area of research
References
R.J. Cano et. al, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 60, 2164, 1994
R.J. Cano, K. Borucki, Science 268, 1060, 1995.
J. Fischman, Science 268, 977, 1995.

Well, we've actually changed around 0.1%. I don't see how this is impossible, though (those 300,000 generations is around four million years).

Yes, I could understand this, the thing is since evolution if random mutations, shouldn't we see a difference in species who have not bread with others of species that live somewhere else in the world?

You should, and you do. Think of the Indian and African elephants.

why have there been many creatures that have not evolved, because they have not been "pressured" to evolve by predators, shouldn't they evolve anyway, because it's simply nothing but random mutations.

Nature selects for those who are best equipped to survive and pass on their genes. Certain designs have proven extremely effective, such as the shark. It's hard to come up with a more efficient design.

 

[imnotcrazy357]

Google it.

I don't believe it exists, and as you claim it does, I would like too see it without wasting my time.

Oh, only parts did? How do you determine which parts?

When it says that a lamb was the only attoinment for sin, you do not still see us sacrificing lambs. You can determine the parts for yourself.

Differences compound over one million generations.

so it takes us 1,000,000 generations to make a gazelle slighty faster, but only 300,000 to develope from monkeys, into fully intelligent human beings?

Well, we've actually changed around 0.1%. I don't see how this is impossible, though (those 300,000 generations is around four million years).

so 200,000,000,000 generations changed a creature 6.7%

but

300,000 is all it takes us to change 0.1% by what you say?

this seems illogical in the sense that the bacteria never even changed its species, and we as humans from chimpanzees changed many.

You should, and you do. Think of the Indian and African elephants.

Shouldn't you see this in all species though? or in almost all species? not just in a select few.

Nature selects for those who are best equipped to survive and pass on their genes. Certain designs have proven extremely effective, such as the shark. It's hard to come up with a more efficient design.

Then how did we split into different species? one species was allways more efficients or a preditor of another, and thus all other species accept one should have died off.

 

[Shredderbeam]

I don't believe it exists, and as you claim it does, I would like too see it without wasting my time.

You should read the Old Testament a bit more closely, then.

http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm

When it says that a lamb was the only attoinment for sin, you do not still see us sacrificing lambs. You can determine the parts for yourself.

How nice. You get to determine which parts to follow.

so it takes us 1,000,000 generations to make a gazelle slighty faster, but only 300,000 to develope from monkeys, into fully intelligent human beings?

Did I say that? I don't think so.

so 200,000,000,000 generations changed a creature 6.7%

but

300,000 is all it takes us to change 0.1% by what you say?

this seems illogical in the sense that the bacteria never even changed its species, and we as humans from chimpanzees changed many.

Er, life hasn't existed for 200 billion generations.

Life does not require a steady change of DNA. It happens in leaps and bounds, as the environment requires.

Shouldn't you see this in all species though? or in almost all species? not just in a select few.

And you do.

Then how did we split into different species? one species was allways more efficients or a preditor of another, and thus all other species accept one should have died off.

Natural selection. No one species is able to be a perfect predator.

 

[imnotcrazy357]

You should read the Old Testament a bit more closely, then.

http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm

If you examine the verses around these they are often taken out of context.

Also they use many different translations in this site, just so they can get the word "slave" in there as many times as possible, alot of the times it often simply means servant, but it depends on how you wish to translate it.

How nice. You get to determine which parts to follow.

It's upon your own will on how you interpret the Bible.

I believe parts of the Old Testament no longer apply after the coming of Christ, but others might not.

Did I say that? I don't think so.

Kind of -

It's unlikely in one animal's lifespan, but consider this happening over some 20 million years.

given a gazelles life span is an average of 20 years, thats 1 million generations.

Er, life hasn't existed for 200 billion generations.

Life does not require a steady change of DNA. It happens in leaps and bounds, as the environment requires.

life for bacteria has existed well over that amount.

200 billion generations for bacteria = 6.7% change

300,000 generations for champanzees turns them into humans.


also you simply just contradicted yourself. You said it does not happen in a short time, it takes long for them to evolve, and then you say it happens in "leaps in bounds"

Which is it?

And you do.

can you name a few off the top of your head?

Natural selection. No one species is able to be a perfect predator.

We started out as single cells correct? these single cells began to destroy other cells, thus when a mutation happened that gave the cell a better advantage, that cell had a better chance of it surviving and so on correct? so then the strongest form of cell was able to destroy the weaker ones, thus no longer no weaker cells exist, and it is only this new species of cells. This should continue throughout history with animals and such, but we don't see this?

 

[Shredderbeam]

If you examine the verses around these they are often taken out of context.

Too bad this wasn't the case here. The Bible directly sanctions slavery, and does not condemn it.

Also they use many different translations in this site, just so they can get the word "slave" in there as many times as possible, alot of the times it often simply means servant, but it depends on how you wish to translate it.

Oh. Can you back that up?

It's upon your own will on how you interpret the Bible.

The Bible is either true, or it's not. One interpretation can be simply wrong.

I don't think that it's very honest to just throw out the parts that you're uncomfortable with.

Kind of -


given a gazelles life span is an average of 20 years, thats 1 million generations.

Bad example, then. I meant for you to consider large amounts of change occurring over 20 million years.

200 billion generations for bacteria = 6.7% change

Mhmm. The first forms of life were quite simple, and so did not have a huge potential for change. Our ancestors were much more complex, with naturally occurring larger amounts of variance, so it's not unreasonable.

also you simply just contradicted yourself. You said it does not happen in a short time, it takes long for them to evolve, and then you say it happens in "leaps in bounds"

Which is it?

It's actually both. It's not a constant flow of change happening over a long time span, it's very spasmodic change happening over a long time.

can you name a few off the top of your head?

Elephants, finches, gazelle, the woolly mammoth, eagles, humans, bears, etc. The list goes on quite far.

We started out as single cells correct? these single cells began to destroy other cells, thus when a mutation happened that gave the cell a better advantage, that cell had a better chance of it surviving and so on correct? so then the strongest form of cell was able to destroy the weaker ones, thus no longer no weaker cells exist, and it is only this new species of cells. This should continue throughout history with animals and such, but we don't see this?

That's somewhat correct. Sometimes, though, life survives because it has a niche that others don't have access to, or isn't preyed upon by other life.

 

[imnotcrazy357]

Too bad this wasn't the case here. The Bible directly sanctions slavery, and does not condemn it.

But who's to say that slavery is wrong? Slavery was a VERY common thing back then.

Oh. Can you back that up?

no, but do you believe everything thats posted on the internet?

The Bible is either true, or it's not. One interpretation can be simply wrong.

I don't think that it's very honest to just throw out the parts that you're uncomfortable with.

Your right, one interpretation can be wrong. Probably like the site you gave me interprets things wrong. they have the power to interpret things how they want to, and they chose to interpret things to try and prove that the bible was immoral. so is their interpretation right, or wrong? and who has the power to give that answer?

Mhmm. The first forms of life were quite simple, and so did not have a huge potential for change. Our ancestors were much more complex, with naturally occurring larger amounts of variance, so it's not unreasonable.

thats where your wrong. the first forms of life would have increased in size millions of times. the percent of change would have been in the millions. yet with something as miniature as a bacteria, the percent of change was only 6.7% in 25 million years? I dont think so.

It's actually both. It's not a constant flow of change happening over a long time span, it's very spasmodic change happening over a long time.

and there's evidence of this, yes? it'd be nice if you could point me in the direction of some.

That's somewhat correct. Sometimes, though, life survives because it has a niche that others don't have access to, or isn't preyed upon by other life.

fair enough, that does make sense. still doesn't answer all my questions but alright...

 

[Shredderbeam]

But who's to say that slavery is wrong? Slavery was a VERY common thing back then.

Morality is based upon non-aggression, and basically, the negative version of the Golden Rule (as Confucius put it, "Do not do to your neighbor what is hateful to yourself")

no

Then why do you claim that the translations between Aramaic, Greek, and English are so arbitrary so as to imply different meanings for fairly common-place words?

but do you believe everything thats posted on the internet?

Of course not. I research it to see if what's being said is correct.

Your right, one interpretation can be wrong. Probably like the site you gave me interprets things wrong. they have the power to interpret things how they want to, and they chose to interpret things to try and prove that the bible was immoral. so is their interpretation right, or wrong? and who has the power to give that answer?

Given an objective morality, which does exist, anybody can pronounce the Bible immoral. That is, unless you want to claim that some of the atrocities are moral?

thats where your wrong. the first forms of life would have increased in size millions of times.

They did increase millions of times, but only after some 2.2-2.3 billion years.

the percent of change would have been in the millions. yet with something as miniature as a bacteria, the percent of change was only 6.7% in 25 million years? I dont think so.

Actually, the genetic differences between humans and amoebas is maybe 10% of our genome. The rest is largely junk DNA.

and there's evidence of this, yes? it'd be nice if you could point me in the direction of some.

The fossil record, and logic. Unless conditions change, why would nature select for change? Sure, there's always slow change, but why would gazelle, surviving for millions of years, suddenly dramatically change if their environment did not?

 

[Macroman]

the gene is one that makes the gazelle run faster.

Not a single gene but a combination of billions.