omega2xx Posted December 4, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted December 4, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, one.opinion said: IMO you are unwilling to learn anything new about the subject. " Your OPINION is wrong. Your own ICR quote proves you are wrong about "speciation doesn't make new species", yet you refuse to admit that your understanding of reality could be improved." ICR did not say speciation produced a new species. It said the evidence was highly questionable. "You can prove me wrong by actually reading and considering what I tell you." I have considered what you say. That is why I reject it. You have NEV ER provide any supporting evidence. You just make statements that you believe are true and expect me to accept them by faith alone, like you have. "I have offered you factual knowledge, not just my opinion." What you consider factual knowledge must be supported by evidence or it is not factual. "I didn't offer up supporting evidence, because I have a real job with real work to do and I can't spare the time to provided evidence for every single thing you state that is incorrect. I made a list of 10 major errors and I wasn't even a third of the way through the thread." As usual, you did nothing but make dogmatic statements and you did not prove anything I have said is wrong. "Please pick one of your errors for me to follow up on with evidence. And also keep in mind that you haven't supplied an iota of evidence to support your own opinion, so please be fair in your demands for evidence." 3. Evolution has never been observed to have happened (Evolution is easily provable and constant - some of the implications of evolution, like common ancestry, are not directly observable, but are based on real, observed evidence.) Love. peace, joy Edited December 4, 2019 by omega2xx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted December 4, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted December 4, 2019 4 hours ago, Eman_3 said: Every mutation is the mechanism for a speciation change. Change is constant, some changes are detrimental and the species dies. Some do noting, and just persist. Some mutations are beneficial and are incorporated into the blood line. The difference between micro and macro evolution is just time. Talk is cheap. Produce the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted December 4, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted December 4, 2019 (edited) 6 hours ago, one.opinion said: *bangs head on desk for a while* Todd Wood and Kurt Wise are prime examples... you may have heard those names in this thread... *bangs head a few more times* Evidently banging your head has cause you some problems. 2 is not many. I can name 10 or more that reject what Wood and Wise believe. Love, peace and joy Edited December 4, 2019 by omega2xx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted December 4, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.11 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted December 4, 2019 10 minutes ago, omega2xx said: "Your own ICR quote proves you are wrong about "speciation doesn't make new species", yet you refuse to admit that your understanding of reality could be improved." ICR did not say speciation produced a new species. It said the evidence was highly questionable. Look at the quote again. I'll bold the pertinent part for you. Quote Summary The wide variety of definitions for the term species today permits one to conclude that some new species are being formed from old species. Thus, speciation supporting microevolution (horizontal change), is an acknowledged phenomenon. However, the critical category of speciation that would establish macroevolution (vertical change) is said to be difficult to document as a totally observed event. Although much literature has been written to illustrate the concept, most of it is inferential. Even in these writings, a credible extrapolation of these transformations to establish higher taxonation above the species level is very suspect. Yes, speciation is an acknowledged phenomenon. And speciation is the process of the development of a new species. It could not be any more clear. 14 minutes ago, omega2xx said: I have considered what you say. That is why I reject it. You have NEV ER provide any supporting evidence. You just make statements that you believe are true and expect me to accept them by faith alone, like you have. Even though I continue to remind you, you somehow continue to forget that I have provided evidence and you refused to look at it. 15 minutes ago, omega2xx said: What you consider factual knowledge must be supported by evidence or it is not factual. It is still factual whether I take the time to show you evidence or not. I asked you to pick one of the 10 errors I found (you asked for 2-3 earlier), and I would provide evidence to show you why you are wrong. You have finally decided on one - this is good. 20 minutes ago, omega2xx said: 3. Evolution has never been observed to have happened (Evolution is easily provable and constant - some of the implications of evolution, like common ancestry, are not directly observable, but are based on real, observed evidence.) It might be useful to review what evolution actually is - heritable change over time. Darwin described it as "descent with modification". This means that characteristics of living organisms can change over the course of generations. This is one example - I could tell you about many others. In 1971, biologists began an experiment in a small island chain where they moved 5 mating pairs of a certain lizard species (Podarcis sicula) to another island. The lizards were left on their own for about 30 years before the lizards were observed on the new island. Researchers first noticed that the diet had changed from a primarily insectivorous diet on the old island, to a largely herbivorous diet on the new island. This change in diet had a few major anatomical effects. First, the heads of the lizards on the new island were significantly larger in all three dimensions when compared to the same species on the old island. Additionally, the bite strength was significantly greater to allow tearing and more chewing of vegetation, and indicating altered musculature around the jaw. To the scientists' extreme surprise, the lizards on the new island also developed cecal valves that were missing from the lizards on the old island. These cecal valves were presumed to have developed due to the need to retain material in the intestines to help extract more nutrients. The insectivorous diet is much easier to extract nutrients from, so no cecal valves were needed. All in all, this study showed several heritable changes over time, thus showing evolution does indeed take place in observable time scales - constituting verifiable evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted December 4, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.11 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted December 4, 2019 32 minutes ago, omega2xx said: Evidently banging your head has cause you some problems. No, it probably isn't a good idea... sometimes frustrating conversations get the better of me. 33 minutes ago, omega2xx said: I can name 10 or more that reject what Wood and Wise believe. Ok, please produce of that list of 10 or more young earth creation scientists that reject what Wood and Wise have to say. As you have just said: 38 minutes ago, omega2xx said: Talk is cheap. Produce the evidence. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted December 4, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,041 Content Per Day: 0.66 Reputation: 969 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 4, 2019 32 minutes ago, one.opinion said: Ok, please produce of that list of 10 or more young earth creation scientists that reject what Wood and Wise have to say. I would be much more interested in learning what ten or more, with equal understanding of the evidence reject what Wood and Wise (and Aardsma, and Coffin and...) have said. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted December 4, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.11 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted December 4, 2019 7 minutes ago, The Barbarian said: I would be much more interested in learning what ten or more, with equal understanding of the evidence reject what Wood and Wise (and Aardsma, and Coffin and...) have said. Yes, but I seriously doubt a list is forthcoming, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted December 4, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,041 Content Per Day: 0.66 Reputation: 969 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 4, 2019 4 minutes ago, Jonathan BeWell said: Evolution is not even an "opinion," It's an observed fact. Remember when you learned what "evolution" means in biology? "Change in allele frequencies in a population over time." Directly observed. So is macroevolutionary change. Even many creationists admit speciation is a fact. Would you like me to show you that? I'm guessing you're confusing evolution with consequences of evolution like common descent. But many creationists admit a limited amount of common descent, around families or orders. You've seen that; would you like to see it again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted December 4, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.11 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted December 4, 2019 12 minutes ago, Jonathan BeWell said: Evolution is not even an "opinion," just a sick fantasy to replace God with young, foolish gods. I'll be happy to discuss any of the scientific evidence for evolution with you. If not, you can always ponder Proverbs 17:28. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alive Posted December 4, 2019 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 22 Topic Count: 194 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 11,053 Content Per Day: 6.58 Reputation: 9,010 Days Won: 36 Joined: 09/12/2019 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/09/1956 Share Posted December 4, 2019 I wonder what motivates folks to push hard for evolution on a Christian forum. How is this edifying? Who benefits and how. Is it glorious knowledge that points to Christ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts