Conquer Club

wouldnt animals like the ostrich be considered evidence of evolution seeing as how they have wings but are unable to fly. also there is a lizard that lives in a cave in china that has eyes that no longer function due to the lack of light. and there are also some snakes that have bone structure set up for hips that no longer resemble appendages. and fish that have learned to walk ( or at least crawl ) around on land for short periods. wouldnt an amphibian be a link between aquatic animals mutating towards land based. also what happened to the galapagos islands. has all this been discredited? i was under the impression this was all solid evidence.

WILLIAMS5232 wrote:wouldnt animals like the ostrich be considered evidence of evolution seeing as how they have wings but are unable to fly. also there is a lizard that lives in a cave in china that has eyes that no longer function due to the lack of light. and there are also some snakes that have bone structure set up for hips that no longer resemble appendages. and fish that have learned to walk ( or at least crawl ) around on land for short periods. wouldnt an amphibian be a link between aquatic animals mutating towards land based. also what happened to the galapagos islands. has all this been discredited? i was under the impression this was all solid evidence.

Darwin predicted that he could find certain species with certain characteristics in the gallapagos. Like insect with a nose long enough to extract pollen from certain flowers; those insects were discovered many years after his death. Also, we humans have clear remnants of a tail that slowly disapeared with evolution. But I don't think we're here to have a reasonable conversation anyway.

betiko wrote:

WILLIAMS5232 wrote:wouldnt animals like the ostrich be considered evidence of evolution seeing as how they have wings but are unable to fly. also there is a lizard that lives in a cave in china that has eyes that no longer function due to the lack of light. and there are also some snakes that have bone structure set up for hips that no longer resemble appendages. and fish that have learned to walk ( or at least crawl ) around on land for short periods. wouldnt an amphibian be a link between aquatic animals mutating towards land based. also what happened to the galapagos islands. has all this been discredited? i was under the impression this was all solid evidence.

Darwin predicted that he could find certain species with certain characteristics in the gallapagos. Like insect with a nose long enough to extract pollen from certain flowers; those insects were discovered many years after his death. Also, we humans have clear remnants of a tail that slowly disapeared with evolution. But I don't think we're here to have a reasonable conversation anyway.

Sorry betiko, they are way ahead of you. Let me refer you to one or two sources I'm sure UC is familiar with and has bookmarked:

http://creation.com/vestigial-arguments ... -evolution

https://answersingenesis.org/human-body ... al-organs/


--Andy

so what about the lizard with non functioning eyes? or the ostrich wings. surely wings only serve one original purpose right? how do creationists explain bible magic and still be taken seriously while trying to explain away reasonable theories towards evolution?

WILLIAMS5232 wrote:so what about the lizard with non functioning eyes? or the ostrich wings. surely wings only serve one original purpose right? how do creationists explain bible magic and still be taken seriously while trying to explain away reasonable theories towards evolution?

You cannot make someone see that refuses to see. You cannot make someone hear that refuses to hear.

notyou2 wrote:

WILLIAMS5232 wrote:so what about the lizard with non functioning eyes? or the ostrich wings. surely wings only serve one original purpose right? how do creationists explain bible magic and still be taken seriously while trying to explain away reasonable theories towards evolution?

You cannot make someone see that refuses to see. You cannot make someone hear that refuses to hear.

i guess i knew that. its just baffling to me that someone can be so sure of something that they are unsure of. the way i see it is i dont know, and i never will know. so whatever happens will happen. in the meantime, ill just absorb as much about it as i can and enjoy the uncertainty of it all.

WILLIAMS5232 wrote:

notyou2 wrote:

WILLIAMS5232 wrote:so what about the lizard with non functioning eyes? or the ostrich wings. surely wings only serve one original purpose right? how do creationists explain bible magic and still be taken seriously while trying to explain away reasonable theories towards evolution?

You cannot make someone see that refuses to see. You cannot make someone hear that refuses to hear.

i guess i knew that. its just baffling to me that someone can be so sure of something that they are unsure of. the way i see it is i dont know, and i never will know. so whatever happens will happen. in the meantime, ill just absorb as much about it as i can and enjoy the uncertainty of it all.

Even if this were true, it provides no support for evolution because evolution requires new structures to arise naturalistically. Rather, loss of teeth is just another example of degeneration, which fits perfectly within the biblical worldview of Creation and Fall.

I read this off of creation .com after I hit mute

WILLIAMS5232 wrote:wouldnt animals like the ostrich be considered evidence of evolution seeing as how they have wings but are unable to fly. also there is a lizard that lives in a cave in china that has eyes that no longer function due to the lack of light. and there are also some snakes that have bone structure set up for hips that no longer resemble appendages. and fish that have learned to walk ( or at least crawl ) around on land for short periods. wouldnt an amphibian be a link between aquatic animals mutating towards land based. also what happened to the galapagos islands. has all this been discredited? i was under the impression this was all solid evidence.

This is a good post, first bit of logic and evidence through the mostly trolling evolutionary post of I know I'm right and have majority, therefore you are wrong crud.
Williams, the defining line is adaptation versus evolution. Adaptation is what you described but at the end of the day, end of the century, end of 1,000s years they are still the same kind. Because the DNA would need new information that is not there to have a new kind. This is where faith comes in and science leaves with "but if these adaptations pile up over millions of years then we have different kinds.

universalchiro wrote:

WILLIAMS5232 wrote:wouldnt animals like the ostrich be considered evidence of evolution seeing as how they have wings but are unable to fly. also there is a lizard that lives in a cave in china that has eyes that no longer function due to the lack of light. and there are also some snakes that have bone structure set up for hips that no longer resemble appendages. and fish that have learned to walk ( or at least crawl ) around on land for short periods. wouldnt an amphibian be a link between aquatic animals mutating towards land based. also what happened to the galapagos islands. has all this been discredited? i was under the impression this was all solid evidence.

This is a good post, first bit of logic and evidence through the mostly trolling evolutionary post of I know I'm right and have majority, therefore you are wrong crud.
Williams, the defining line is adaptation versus evolution. Adaptation is what you described but at the end of the day, end of the century, end of 1,000s years they are still the same kind. Because the DNA would need new information that is not there to have a new kind. This is where faith comes in and science leaves with "but if these adaptations pile up over millions of years then we have different kinds.

Are you saying that all birds and all lizards have the same DNA? That adaptation and subspecies don t create new genes?

universalchiro wrote:

WILLIAMS5232 wrote:wouldnt animals like the ostrich be considered evidence of evolution seeing as how they have wings but are unable to fly. also there is a lizard that lives in a cave in china that has eyes that no longer function due to the lack of light. and there are also some snakes that have bone structure set up for hips that no longer resemble appendages. and fish that have learned to walk ( or at least crawl ) around on land for short periods. wouldnt an amphibian be a link between aquatic animals mutating towards land based. also what happened to the galapagos islands. has all this been discredited? i was under the impression this was all solid evidence.

This is a good post, first bit of logic and evidence through the mostly trolling evolutionary post of I know I'm right and have majority, therefore you are wrong crud.
Williams, the defining line is adaptation versus evolution. Adaptation is what you described but at the end of the day, end of the century, end of 1,000s years they are still the same kind. Because the DNA would need new information that is not there to have a new kind. This is where faith comes in and science leaves with "but if these adaptations pile up over millions of years then we have different kinds.

universalchiro wrote:

WILLIAMS5232 wrote:wouldnt animals like the ostrich be considered evidence of evolution seeing as how they have wings but are unable to fly. also there is a lizard that lives in a cave in china that has eyes that no longer function due to the lack of light. and there are also some snakes that have bone structure set up for hips that no longer resemble appendages. and fish that have learned to walk ( or at least crawl ) around on land for short periods. wouldnt an amphibian be a link between aquatic animals mutating towards land based. also what happened to the galapagos islands. has all this been discredited? i was under the impression this was all solid evidence.

This is a good post, first bit of logic and evidence through the mostly trolling evolutionary post of I know I'm right and have majority, therefore you are wrong crud.
Williams, the defining line is adaptation versus evolution. Adaptation is what you described but at the end of the day, end of the century, end of 1,000s years they are still the same kind. Because the DNA would need new information that is not there to have a new kind. This is where faith comes in and science leaves with "but if these adaptations pile up over millions of years then we have different kinds.

Time to challenge your standings to the ultimate limits...
Since according to the believers of god the earth was created ~6000 years ago, can you enlist few examples of animal adaptation from biblical times(around 1AD) and now. 2000 years is around 1/3 from the while period so it should be enough to have plenty of examples.

*Note... Only written examples with specific observations(or quality picture) counts from proven scholars. And as you said, both observed animals should have same DNA.

We do have new kinds. Take a look at maize v teosinte.

universalchiro wrote:

WILLIAMS5232 wrote:wouldnt animals like the ostrich be considered evidence of evolution seeing as how they have wings but are unable to fly. also there is a lizard that lives in a cave in china that has eyes that no longer function due to the lack of light. and there are also some snakes that have bone structure set up for hips that no longer resemble appendages. and fish that have learned to walk ( or at least crawl ) around on land for short periods. wouldnt an amphibian be a link between aquatic animals mutating towards land based. also what happened to the galapagos islands. has all this been discredited? i was under the impression this was all solid evidence.

This is a good post, first bit of logic and evidence through the mostly trolling evolutionary post of I know I'm right and have majority, therefore you are wrong crud.
Williams, the defining line is adaptation versus evolution. Adaptation is what you described but at the end of the day, end of the century, end of 1,000s years they are still the same kind. Because the DNA would need new information that is not there to have a new kind. This is where faith comes in and science leaves with "but if these adaptations pile up over millions of years then we have different kinds.

Define your term.

Define your term.

DEFINE YOUR TERM.

You cannot toss around a term like "kind" in the same argument as evolution, adaptation, DNA, and millions of years without bothering to define that term. I've repeatedly asked you to define it so that you can have a grown-up conversation, but you keep dodging it and pigeonholing "kind" into whatever argument you feel like making.

DoomYoshi wrote:We do have new kinds. Take a look at maize v teosinte.

Yoshi, This is seems like corn adapting but remaining corn. I looked at a couple of evolutionary websites and they only had drawings, though they wrote as though this was 100% fact, I was struck by the lack of evidence to support that this was a different kind of plant. Sure its a different species, but still corn. Adaptation is seen and observable is not evolution, though if adaptation was allowed to build upon past ancestral adaptations then you would have some strong evidence to support evolution. But there are inherent DNA codes that block and prevent to far of adaptation. And passing on the mutated gene is blocked with sterility, still birth & similar kind of creatures shun mutations and won't mate with them. Mutations are usually weaker and nature (survival of fittest) kills the weak, with weather killing some . Bottom line mutations don't get a great opportunity to pass on genes, and adaptation has limits how far they can adapt.
You get an A+ for bringing evidence with cordial words. Your post was excellent. Economy of words but profound. I like it, keep up the good work.

denominator wrote:

universalchiro wrote:

WILLIAMS5232 wrote:wouldnt animals like the ostrich be considered evidence of evolution seeing as how they have wings but are unable to fly. also there is a lizard that lives in a cave in china that has eyes that no longer function due to the lack of light. and there are also some snakes that have bone structure set up for hips that no longer resemble appendages. and fish that have learned to walk ( or at least crawl ) around on land for short periods. wouldnt an amphibian be a link between aquatic animals mutating towards land based. also what happened to the galapagos islands. has all this been discredited? i was under the impression this was all solid evidence.

This is a good post, first bit of logic and evidence through the mostly trolling evolutionary post of I know I'm right and have majority, therefore you are wrong crud.
Williams, the defining line is adaptation versus evolution. Adaptation is what you described but at the end of the day, end of the century, end of 1,000s years they are still the same kind. Because the DNA would need new information that is not there to have a new kind. This is where faith comes in and science leaves with "but if these adaptations pile up over millions of years then we have dififerent kinds.

Define your term.

Define your term.

DEFINE YOUR TERM.

You cannot toss around a term like "kind" in the same argument as evolution, adaptation, DNA, and millions of years without bothering to define that term. I've repeatedly asked you to define it so that you can have a grown-up conversation, but you keep dodging it and pigeonholing "kind" into whatever argument you feel like making.

Denominator, relax. Mankind does not 100% have nailed down species and exactly which creature goes into which man made category, so don't get all up in arms. Slide your finger away from the trigger, slowly holster your weapon and we'll talk this out. Its hard for me to talk when you're shooting at my feet saying dance Texas, dance Texas.

Kind was not fully defined in the Bible. Man was made in God's image (physically internally & externally) and likeness (characteristics:personality, thought, etc). So let that be a broad definition.

Now that you've holstered your weapon, let me pull out my guns and say,"I've answered this question many times in other threads, but specifically from Yoshi a couple of pages ago.

And yes I have many guns in real life, I'm from Texas!

Evolution is false because I know this book that says a supernatural being made everything out of magical silly putty.

A constant in this world is change. Look at language, customs ect. Everything is bond to change. Do you think that in millions of years, with climate and environmental changes most species haven't changed?

take pengouins. do you consider them as birds? Do you think their DNA wasn't modified thorugh time, so that their feathers could stand the cold and their change from an aerial/land environment to an aquatic/land environment? How long would these mutations have taken? If you put that on the scale of living life forms, how much could they have changed before that?
Birds are descendants of reptiles and descendants of dinosaurs.

i think it is pretty well understood that in order to evolve you would have to adapt. so those two, for me at least, go hand in hand. when i hear adaption, i also hear evolve. now to say a zebra would birth a little baby polar bear does not make sense to me. but minute changes over thousands of years does. more so than noah rounding up every known species of animal and putting them on a hand-crafted boat and having them coexist for 40aa days at least. a

WILLIAMS5232 wrote:i think it is pretty well understood that in order to evolve you would have to adapt. so those two, for me at least, go hand in hand. when i hear adaption, i also hear evolve. now to say a zebra would birth a little baby polar bear does not make sense to me. but minute changes over thousands of years does. more so than noah rounding up every known species of animal and putting them on a hand-crafted boat and having them coexist for 40aa days at least. a

it was a really big boat!

WILLIAMS5232 wrote:i think it is pretty well understood that in order to evolve you would have to adapt. so those two, for me at least, go hand in hand. when i hear adaption, i also hear evolve. now to say a zebra would birth a little baby polar bear does not make sense to me. but minute changes over thousands of years does. more so than noah rounding up every known species of animal and putting them on a hand-crafted boat and having them coexist for 40aa days at least. a

Well said Williams, all evolutionist believe (you use its understood) that adaptation is evolution given enough time. Since no one observes that adaptation is not limited and no can observe the alleged evolution millions of years ago and since its so slow that no can observe a change of kind today, that's where science ends and faith takes over.

Show observable change of kind that we can see today.

Adaptation has limits defined by DNA code. Impossible to evolve to different kind w/o new DNA coding that wasn't already there.
Analogous to computer software program, via random keystrokes by blindfolded monkeys accident ly improving the software program, not just once for one benefit, but trillions of trillions of times.
Remember, to randomly form a protein is 1 in 2X10exp150. So this belief is impossible.
Adaptation already has the DNA to do so.
Evolution requires new DNA code for new function, or new kind.
The two are very different.

universalchiro wrote:

WILLIAMS5232 wrote:i think it is pretty well understood that in order to evolve you would have to adapt. so those two, for me at least, go hand in hand. when i hear adaption, i also hear evolve. now to say a zebra would birth a little baby polar bear does not make sense to me. but minute changes over thousands of years does. more so than noah rounding up every known species of animal and putting them on a hand-crafted boat and having them coexist for 40aa days at least. a

Well said Williams, all evolutionist believe (you use its understood) that adaptation is evolution given enough time. Since no one observes that adaptation is not limited and no can observe the alleged evolution millions of years ago and since its so slow that no can observe a change of kind today, that's where science ends and faith takes over.

Show observable change of kind that we can see today.

Adaptation has limits defined by DNA code. Impossible to evolve to different kind w/o new DNA coding that wasn't already there.
Analogous to computer software program, via random keystrokes by blindfolded monkeys accident ly improving the software program, not just once for one benefit, but trillions of trillions of times.
Remember, to randomly form a protein is 1 in 2X10exp150. So this belief is impossible.
Adaptation already has the DNA to do so.
Evolution requires new DNA code for new function, or new kind.
The two are very different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_te ... _cave_form

I've always liked this creature.


--Andy

universalchiro wrote:

WILLIAMS5232 wrote:i think it is pretty well understood that in order to evolve you would have to adapt. so those two, for me at least, go hand in hand. when i hear adaption, i also hear evolve. now to say a zebra would birth a little baby polar bear does not make sense to me. but minute changes over thousands of years does. more so than noah rounding up every known species of animal and putting them on a hand-crafted boat and having them coexist for 40aa days at least. a

Well said Williams, all evolutionist believe (you use its understood) that adaptation is evolution given enough time. Since no one observes that adaptation is not limited and no can observe the alleged evolution millions of years ago and since its so slow that no can observe a change of kind today, that's where science ends and faith takes over.

Show observable change of kind that we can see today.

Adaptation has limits defined by DNA code. Impossible to evolve to different kind w/o new DNA coding that wasn't already there.
Analogous to computer software program, via random keystrokes by blindfolded monkeys accident ly improving the software program, not just once for one benefit, but trillions of trillions of times.
Remember, to randomly form a protein is 1 in 2X10exp150. So this belief is impossible.
Adaptation already has the DNA to do so.
Evolution requires new DNA code for new function, or new kind.
The two are very different.

All what you say is wrong. Please stop posting chilidish stuff. Give us some challenging arguments that could prove what you are saying.

universalchiro wrote:. Man was made in God's image (physically internally & externally) and likeness (characteristics:personality, thought, etc)

So does God have toenails?How fast do they grow? What did he cut them with before he created, well, anything, and where do the nail clippings go?

Does God have DNA?

UC, till what age did your parents managed to make you believe in santa claus? This is a a very important matter in this debate.