Re: The correct definition.

"[M]adman" <grat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:l%Iwl.17971$v8.6910@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Dave Oldridge wrote:
"[M]adman" <grat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:3Eawl.17392$i9.17110
@bignews7.bellsouth.net:

Dave Oldridge wrote:
"[M]adman" <grat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:ECLvl.16824$v8.1710@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Dave Oldridge wrote:
"[M]adman" <grat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:0qzvl.16569$i9.14497@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

What should be the correct definition for evolution?

"The processes that allows life to continue despite the
conditions on the earth. These conditions allow adaptations to
take place in a linear fashion thereby allowing the original
kind to survive and have many sub-kinds that are each one after
their original kind"

There is no strong evidence supporting the idea that there was
more than one "original kind."

There was more then one kind. Science is on the wrong track IMHO.
Science has over looked something or there is something yet to be
discovered that will bring what we already know in better focus.

In fact i see two (possibly three with the Cambrian) separate and
distinct creations. The first creation much larger and much older
with many created kinds that gave rise to others after their own
kind. These created kinds adapted as the earth changed over the
eons. Some survived the meteorite impacts, the ice ages, and the
upheavals the earth has suffered to continue the life cycle.

Then, a second (or possibly third) creation in the garden of Eden
as described in the Hebrew bible (and other texts) which happened
much latter. This second creation marks the last eon or earth age
that we are currently in. We seem to be living during the last
part of the final eon according to some traditions. For instance,
the Myan's traditions to name but one.

Most do not want to admit these records the ancients left behind
have some truth to them. So by you clinging on to this relativly
'new' idea of evolution you only hinder science in it's discovery
of exactly what has happened in the past.

Pure bilge. Unsubstantiated opinion based mostly on a fevered
imagination. You offer no analysis whatever.

Not true. The texts substantiate and are here.

What reason is there for what is recorded to be a lie? Why would
these ancient peoples take heavy stone, sit down and carve these
stones with stories? Just to lie to you all these years latter?
Highly unlikely.

Humans tell stories. It's what we do.

Which does not mean the stories are not based on some type of truth

And that's why we need to interpret them in the light of forensic
evidence. That can help us determine what kind of truth they are based
on.


What we see is general evolution punctuated by some rather severe
catastrophes. The Cambrian explosion (so-called) arrived on the
heels of a planetary freeze-over. The Permian extinction coincides
with the Siberian traps vulcanism. There is a Jurassic extinction
that is not so severe as the K-T extinction that came much later.

All the more reason that severe interuptions of the evolutionary
process stops the progress of evolution which claims it needs lots
of time. Aparantly you have had many interuptions in evolution for
evolution to be true.

It doesn't, though. It knocks out a large number of species and
then, when the environment recovers, we see a rapid evolution of new
species centered on the groups remaining after the extinction event.

True. But it still cuts the time factor down. You need time for
divergence.

Since we have protocols that produce speciation in animals in 20
generations and (sometimes) in plants in a single generation, we don't
need much. What is needed is isolation of small subpopulations more than
time.

ne preceded by a fair number
of intermediates and we arrive with genetics that demonstrate
beyond reasonable doubt our common ancestry with the other great
apes.

Reasonable doubt permeates evolutionary theory.

Nope....not in the respect of our common ancestry with the other
great apes. Your unreasonable doubts, rooted in religious dogma, are
understandable, but have no scientific standing.

That is just it. I am not basing the opinion on dogma

Of course you are. You twist every which way in the wind to deny the
obvious implications of the genetics.


Macro-Evolution is flimsily.


Macro-evolution is far more robust than latter-day young-earth
creationism, which is contradicted by many lines of evidence.

Common design could also be what you are observing instead.

If human and ape were isolated with their genetic similarities then
you would have a point. But they are not. You can find many species
that are unrelated with genetic similarities

1. Ultimately there are no unrelated species.
2. Your claim of a common designer would preclude that designer
being actually intelligent, since the pattern we see is very
inefficient.

A fantasy omnipotent designer could be blamed for everything, but
evolution actually explains what we see in terms of what we see, not
some imaginary pagan godlet that makes stupid mistakes (or is utterly
malicious).


The creation was corrupted. What you are viewing is not the original
design thanks to your pops

So the evil demi-god is the creator of species, according to you?

We Christians don't believe in your pagan deities.

You are a counterfit christian. And that clock is ticking

YOU are a counterfeit Christian, sir, and your clock has nearly run out.

Go to hell if you want. It's your RIIIIIGHT!


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 454777283

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Naturalistic Fallacy
    ... They are a part of Darwinian evolution. ... It is interesting to note that sometimes what we humans prefer to call the ... Few spots remain on earth that are ... ESCAPING each species' needing SOME kind of externality complex if it is to ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Twenty questions for creationists
    ... What are the three greatest challenges to evolution, ... earth was 100% tropical even in the polar regions. ... see today because a water vapor canopy encircled the earth much like we see ... The entire point of teaching both evolution and creation side by side would ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A Few Simple Questions
    ... or the animal species evolved. ... evolution, Ray Martinez is saying the Bible is false. ... Special creation of all life is an interpretation ... believe that God spent tens of millions of years smiting various species ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Okay then: Set your own criteria for what represents a scientific argument
    ... being the center of the universe, ... reasonable explanation for the creation viewpoint. ... evolution of species, it depends on what is meant by those words. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Few Simple Questions - I want some answers - evos/YECs - NOW!
    ... You aren't either, Ray. ... Since evolution is impossible.... ... Any evidence of special creation of species? ... If you assert the quote marked words mean the whole world or Earth ...
    (talk.origins)