The theory of creation rests on the concept that the Earth and life was created with age. For example Adam and Eve were created as adults, not infants, etc. The same goes for the earth, the universe. So there is no dispute about apparent age.

No argument here either.

 Here we differ. Life changes not except within certian limitations within the created genes. There is a variation within a species manifested in breeds, etc. Everything is as it was at creation. The only difference is we have lost species through extinction.

I'll give another personal life experience at this point. My uncle's parents were both deaf. One was born deaf, the other aquired deafness by some disease. When his mother was pregnant the doctor recommended she abort because the fear was that because she was born deaf, that the gene responsible would be passed on. However she refused and my Uncle was born surprisingly to the Doctors in good health. He has children, and they are normal as well. The gene that resulted in his mothers deafness was a mutation, and when such mutations occur, the created genes will attempt to repair themselves and return back to the original created state.

And isn't disputed either.

I believe your Taxonomic distinction is sufficient.

Vastet wrote:

You're confusing the beginning of life with evolution, a common theist mistake. Evolution doesn't claim to create life, it merely claims to change it. And the evidence for this is so overwhelming that denial of it automatically strips you of all credibility. Evolution is fact, period.

evolution is a theory that many including Darwin have given extremely long winded proofs which prove nothing.

This is a contradictary statement. Too long winded for you to read so it proves nothing?

And besides when it comes to Origins how does evolution attempt to prove when the Cockroaches evolutionary beginning? We have fossiles of Cockroaches that date back to the day of the dinosaurs and yet the Cockroach hasn't changed a bit. when did they evolve? Why are they still the same when man supposedly evolved so much since then?

Bugs do evolve. Natural selection. What doesn't get eaten by predators, those traits get passed on. Cockroaches have a body that is difficult to crush when stepped on. They are fast. These survival traits have passed along time with them. They have become immune to old forms of bug killer. That's why they make "NEW" Raid.

Bill C. wrote:

As a hobby I used to breed cats.

SNIP.

Congrats. You just proved the natural selection part of evolution.

Nothing can be further from the truth. This was not Natural Selection, but selective breeding. It illustrates that cats have variation allowed in the genes. The variation was already there.

My mother has a dairy farm. Cows are bred to produce milk. If the dairy market ever died, then what would happen to these cows? Could they survive on their own? You can breed animals if they are taken care of and their environment is not something they need to adapt to.

Adaptation is another part of evolution. You seem to think that you can argue it by taking it apart and arguing against every single point on it's own merits. You can't. You automatically fail just by trying.

The only way you discover how something operates is by examining parts of it, and when you understand it fully, then you can see how it relates to the whole. Adaptation is something that can be observed, and is therefore scientific. But then to use Adaptation as a proof of something you cannot observe is not scientific but requires a leap of faith.

Evolution is like this: 1 + 1 = 3

Incorrect. Evolution is not a leap of faith. You are claiming something that is totally illogical. That's the world you pretend to live in. Evolution is the explanation of how humans/animals have come to be as they are today. If the planet is still habitable in a million years do you really think humans/animals will look like they do today?

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Origin+belief

or Adaptation + Natural Selection = Evolution

But it really doesn't add up.

I want to make this crystal clear. You can not explain the origin of life with "God must have done it." I do not buy it. I do, however, understand the evolutionary model because it is backed by facts. Whenever a religious person is faced with facts, they refuse to accept it no matter what because it goes against what they have already decided is an explanation. People that do not believe in "God must have done it" are willing to hear more on the subject and change what they have accepted as the truth if more facts are presented.
 

 IOW, your "theory" rests on a story in an old book. How nice. How completely worthless, ad hoc and unscientific.

And created "with age"? Are you impling that God intentionally made the universe and earth appear older than it actually is? To what end? To fool people into going to hell? This is the most ad hoc and ridiculous tripe the creationist camp has to offer.

Why not simply propose the universe was created a millisecond ago with you and all your thoughts in place? It's no less absurd. 

If what you propose is indeed scientific or actually a theory, how do you propose that we can test it, and how could it be falsified?

 Eh, well, if I start laying out how it is related like the chirality of proteins and DNA and the types of compounds used to carry out life and how this points to a shared common ancestor you'd be less inclined to agree, I'm sure.

 So you will kindly provide evidence for the physical mechanism that prevents this sort of evolution. Let's have it. And don't think I did not notice that you are dodging on the taxonomic point.

 I fail to see your point or how this answers my point about allelic differentiation and speciation.

 It is by cetain nuts, just as evolution is disputed by more numerous and devout nuts.  The fact remains, you don't understand what a theory actual is. Did you listen to the audio file I posted?

I've not defined it actually. You tried to hedge your arument with vague mentions of "kinds" and "breeds" - all this does is show me how ignorant you actually are.

So again, I ask you what a species is, and whether there is evidence of speciation. I follow that up by asking if you agree with that, what makes you think it magically stops at the species level and what evidence you have that it should.

I think you missed the philosophical point. Which is that if there is a god, killing true worshippers will only end their suffering on earth and send them to heaven to live happily ever after. Obviously that raises morality questions, which I would imagine was the whole point.

Then I'd have to ask why we haven't found any human skeletons(for example) from 3 billion years ago. Why evolution is the only thing that fits the history. Why every strata layer of rock reveals a more complex and varied life than the one below it(mass extinctions aside of course). Your argument is at direct odds with evidence. Perhaps next you'll say that evolution is actually god, and every now and then he drops a few new species on the planet to make things interesting. I wonder why noone has ever seen that happen....

The mutated genes were still passed on. His decendants will be that much more likely to be born deaf than someone without such a family history. As it's not a survival trait, it's not likely to spread throughout the species. And doesn't disprove evolution. Quite the opposite.

Actually, it is.

Evolution is a theory only in the way gravity is. That is, we know it exists, we just don't know all the specifics.

I already covered the rest of this in a previous post. Since I'm in a generous mood, I'll even copy/paste it to this one.

"An in depth look at evolution would show much of it is random mutation. By it's very definition randomness would suggest some changes would not occurr, while others would. Meaning evolution would suggest that some life would remain relatively unchanged over the eons, while others changed dramatically."

I even kept the spelling error. Besides, how do you know that some cockroaches did not in fact become something else?

Oh it wasn't natural selection, but it certainly demonstrates it quite perfectly. Natural selection cannot be observed, since merely observing it influences it, making it unnatural.

That's not what you're doing. To use a metaphor, you're trying to prove the clock doesn't work by taking apart the hands. Ignoring the motor, the energy source, and the framework. Until you look at the whole thing at the same time, you will forever be wrong.

What I mean is sometimes in order to put forth an untruth (read it 'LIE&#39, instead of providing a simple and straight answer, you go on and on explaining ad infinitem until you completely confuse the other person, and they simply accept the untruth by being overpowered.

Assumption, not fact. Show me a Cockroach that evolved into a beetle, or a spider becoming a tick. Show me a cross species evolutionary example. Insects multiply quickly, surely an example can be cited and shown in the lab. Oh you cant... Because it doesn't happen, and it never did. There is no evidence that insects have ever evolved either.

More likely the raid had to change their formula because of federal regulations. Give me a bottle of the old stuff and I bet it still works on the new bugs.

Is it logical to assume that life is natural? Sure it is, it also is logical to assume life evolved rather than some supernatural creation event. (Okay for the moment I am taking your position.) Isnt it illogical that life suddenly appeared in complex form as it is today? Well actually thats what the fossile record shows to be true. umm, but wait, that isn't logical. The fossile record only represents a fraction of what really happened. There are many gaps in the fossile record so we don't really have proof that animals evolved, because there are so many holes... But we just want to believe because the alternative... Oh wait, we do have examples, like the horse, except that the proofs we have believed for so long as proof of evolution, have been shown as false. The horses didn't evolve because the animals cited were actually different species, not evolutionary examples. Oh and all those missing link fakeries, but because there are so many missing link fakes, logically speaking there must be a real one found one day. The alternative is that we have to believe in a God, and um... Well if thats the case, then I can't do what I want anymore. So isn't it logical to just ignore that there might be a God so I can go on living like I want?

You are assuming the creation model is not?

Are you a religious person?

Is this really true for you as well?

I think the example was that he opposed making money off the religious.

Yer preaching to the choir now buddy.

Most Christians don't know this: Jesus wasn't considered a heretic to the religious leaders in Jerusalem, he was perceived as a threat. Many were calling him 'Messiah', which to the Jews in that day meant 'King'. 'Messiah' or 'Annointed one' is a title to the Jews as 'Pharaoh' was to the Egyptians, or 'Ceasar' to the Romans. If Jesus was to be a King, their authority was being challenged, since they were placed in power by the occupying Romans, hence their need to have him killed.

Whoa stop the press, I never said I was a Christian.

 Well you quoted him out of context then. I can certainly agree that some dogma and sectarian hatred is evidence the Church is not of Jesus. "You shall know them by their fruits."

I looked him up after I wrote that last post, and Wikipedia has some good info on him.

We are all his sons if we are created by him.

Amen.

Yea, Bill C.  Please show me evidence otherwise and I will gladly change my mind.

This Bill C character doesn't understand the FIRST THING about Evolution and the difference between facts and theories.

1) Saying "It's just a theory" just proves you're the one who's been fed bullshit by the preacher. As someone else pointed out, Gravity is "just a theory". Do you believe in Gravity? We're sure Evolution is true just as much we're sure Gravity is true. A theory does not mean "knowledge on its way to being proven"; a theory is a model for explaining reality. And it's all based on facts. What, ye say facts? YES. COLD HARD FACTS. Evolution is a theory for explaining FACTS. It's like putting the dots together. You're assuming people are inventing the dots here. What you say has as much veracity as saying "But you don't know the apple falls! That's a load of crap! It's His noodly appendage pulling it down invisibly!".

2) Evolution does not mean a dog will turn into a cat. How about you educate yourself? Most species evolve slowly, and their change is gradual. Wolves is likely to suffer some mutations during a long period of time... Evolution doesn't say they will grow wings overnight, just because. Just like a cat won't grow fins anywhere in the near future. It's not *POOF* "The species magically morphed!!!" To say a dog would have to turn into a cat to prove evolution is seriously retarded. I don't mean dumb, or stupid. I mean retarded. Please, for humanity's sake, READ SOMETHING!

3) Evolution is NOT concerned with the origins of life. 

You're truly blinded, and there's not much we can do for you. We've shown you evidence and yet you continue to ignore. The problem is that you don't want evolution to be proven, even when there's MOUNTAINS of evidence. You're just too scared your Invisibly Sky Daddy won't be there to pull you out of the dirt when you die. If you're a grown adult be mature enough to accept reality: EVOLUTION IS A FACT.

But, PLEASE. Don't take OUR word for it. Go to a library, read some books on the veracity of evolution. Updated stuff. Don't just listen to the preacher or the forums online. Go to some University somewhere, ask people who really really KNOW about the subject, professionals. If you're so sure Evolution is bullshit, how about you take your views to real scientists? Don't feel bad when they laugh in your face after you tell them "It's just a theory! You can't observe it in the lab... and uh... the dna molecule is a 3 dimensional molecule!"

Bill C.,

I have to assume that you didn't read any of the articles YN5 linked to for you. Bummer.

So, once more...

FACT: Mutations occur in animals. (Most examples will focus on when this occurs in the production of gametes.) This causes a genetic change.

FACT: Mutations can be passed to offspring.

FACT: Animals that are better suited to an environment will have more offspring. Perhaps the faster predator or the prey with better camoflague. All depends on the animal and environment.

Therefore, a population of animals changes to suit its environment. That's evolution! TADA!

First: The "dog to cat" strawman!

To start, we need the definition of species. The idea of "species" is purely man-made so we can try to keep track of all the creepy crawlies out there. A fairly widely accepted definition of "species" when dealing with animals is if two animals are of the same species, they can produce viable offspring. Sometimes, however, we go solely on physical attributes. One example where the offspring example doesn't work is with tigers and lions.

Female tiger + male lion = liger. Both male and female ligers have been found to be fertile with either tigers or lions.

Male tiger + female tiger = tigon. Males have found to be sterile, while females are sometimes fertile.

So... we generally apply the physical differences definition to tigers and lions. Particularly, because they are so rare in the wild (from what I understand, their mating signals differ quite a bit.)

The strawman is "Why don't we see a dog give birth to a cat?" Well, because cats and dogs diverged a long time ago. You could, over a number of generations, breed dogs that looked more and more cat-like. (In this case, YOU would be the "environmental pressure" on the dogs.) If a mutation arose that made a dog much more cat-like, you'd breed that dog left and right to make your population of dogs even more cat-like. And cats and dogs separated by more that just a species-level distinction.

The non-strawman question is "Have we seen new species arise?" Answer: Yes! Under both definitions of species I presented, in fact.

As far as the offspring definition, a number of studies have bred populations of flies, starting from the same original population that cannot interbreed (W.R. Rice and G.W. Salt, 3 studies published in 2 different, peer-reviewed scientific journals.)

And with the physical difference issue, check out those dogs! Wow! So many different sizes and colors. You could almost call those different species. And, in fact, there are a number of breeds that can't interbreed without assistance. If you see a purebred chihuahua mating with a newfoundland, let me know. However, using artificial insemination, any of these breeds can produce fertile offspring (though I imagine, a female chihuahua might have some trouble carrying newfoundland hybrids would have some trouble.)

As far as cockroaches, perhaps they never had environmental pressures on them. They became rather flat, good at hiding under things with strong mandibles for eating all sorts of things. There were probably plenty of places for them to hide and eat stuff so they didn't need to change much. They haven't physically changed but we don't know how they may have changed biologically. Ditto for aligators, they are good at floating in rivers, being hidden and nabbing things that get too close.

The problem with creationism is that it "explains" complex things by requiring something even more complex. If something as complex as life requires something more complex to make it, then doesn't the complex maker of life require an even more complex creator behind it?

-Triften