QUOTE:
|
This is evolution. When it is stated simply and logically, it sounds pretty reasonable. I mean, we didn't make up anything here. The rain changed and then the finches changed as a direct result. The size of the seeds is an example of "environmental pressure". The pressure made the population change to be less pressured, you see?
|
This is
Micro-Evolution. Huge difference. Creationists believe this. We believe that God created dogs. Then there was the flood and we were back to two dogs. From there, those dogs with all the information had puppies which turned into a population and then they dispersed throughout the land. Certain genes thrived in certain conditions while others were lost (ex. long vs. short hair in cold or warm weather).
QUOTE:
|
Now, think of the whole island. There are lot of different things in the environment - seed size is only one. With all off these environmental factors creating different pressures on different traits, not just beak size, the population begins to not just alter but change completely until its genes are so different from what they used to be we can say they are a new species.
|
Have we actually seen this happen? We have never seen a species change into a completely new species. We have seen variation within baramin but never an actual change. This is what I mean when I say that you can't go out and see Macro-Evolution taking place. Also, I would think that we should be able to see many intermediate animals all over the world who are currently evolving into new species (if your theory is correct).
QUOTE:
|
This changing beak size is a trend observed over the span of 2 or 3 years. Is is really so crazy to think that over a 100 years, some animal would become different from what it is today - not a new species, perhaps, but different? Then when you up that scale to 1000 years, then a million, then 100 million... it is possible. It could happen. And it did happen.
|
It did happen? That is why we see so many "missing links" which are still missing? We have never actually seen this happen. It is just the theory proposed by Evolutionist Scientists and the liberal media.
QUOTE:
True, there are many breaks in the fossil record, but they are slowly being filled in every day as we discover more fossils, making evolution seem less and less like a huge extrapolation and more like reality. See these links for examples. The first is the newest "missing link" fossil between humans and lemurs; the second is a story reporting similarities between the raptors and birds, namely, chickens; the third is how whales evolved from land animals, one of the most well documented fossil paths with many of those intermediates you claimed were missing.
"MISSING LINK" FOUND: New Fossil Links Humans, Lemurs?
'Chicken raptor' found in Canada
Evolution: Library: Whale Evolution |
I'm not even going to go into those sites. The very fact that you listed three is enough. How many human fossils do we see in the layers? Thousands? How many lemurs do we see? Thousands? How many links do we see? Maybe one? Basically, it is a lemur with a few human characteristics. If I'm thinking of the same one you listed, it had fingernails instead of claws but no intermediate form? Just one day, it happens to have nails instead of claws? Same goes for all these "missing links". If scientists are so excited to have
ONE missing link, then isn't it obvious that gradualism isn't a possibility? There should be as many if not more "missing links" then the current creatures we see today.
QUOTE:
|
True, no one has seen the dramatic evolution of on species to another.
|
And yet, the schools push it as fact? We have never even seen it once, yet alone many times within a laboratory.
QUOTE:
|
Still, if you see smoke, can't you infer that there is some sort of fire? How do you reach that conclusion if you've never seen the fire? Well, only smoke makes fire, that's how. And only evolution produces the gradation of fossils that we have discovered that show many examples of how one creature has gradually modified over time because of environmental pressures.
|
We don't see one creature gradually changing into a new species over time. We see small-scale evolution but not Macro-Evolution.
QUOTE:
|
Yes, other than the "idea of God", everything in the Bible can be seen for real. So, I can go out and see people turned to salt? I can see talking snakes? The Garden of Eden? The Parting of the Red Sea? People walking on water?
|
Ok, I slightly misled you there. What I meant to say was that the Creation idea that is proposed by the Bible can be seen today from science except for the idea of a God. You can't just go out and see miracles.
QUOTE:
|
As I'm Christian, you might now be asking yourself how I can possibly selectively believe the Bible and support evolution. That would be because always interpreting the Bible literally is silly. Humans have always used symbolism to convey the meaning of their stories, to pass down wisdom to the next generation. When Jonah is in the belly of the whale, for example, did he actually get swallowed up by a whale? Literally? Sounds like a children's tale to me. But whether he got swallowed or not doesn't make a difference. The point is he was in big trouble! The whale is just a device to show he needed to change his selfish ways. Besides, whales filter feed, unless of course it was a killer whale that got him. :)
|
Sigh...Jonah wasn't swallowed up by a whale; it was a
LARGE FISH. The Bible never says that it was a whale; that is a popular misconception. Anyways, the Bible says that was swallowed up and spat out after three days of rotting away. There is no way to take that metaphorically. It was said as actual fact and should be taken that way. Once you start interpreting the Bible the way you want to interpret it, you make huge errors that will lead to eternal damnation. Show me where you can interpret Genesis (creation story) metaphorically.
QUOTE:
|
Seriously. Take anyone. You're the cat's meow, the bees knees, cool! Are you actually the sound a cat makes? No. Are you the knees of a bee? No. Are you cold in temperature? Certainly not. Everyone uses figures of speech and metaphors naturally, even more so in writing. Taking ANYTHING literally is silly.
|
But this is the Word of God and was written through men who were
inspired by God. If the entire Bible was to be translated metaphorically, then what basis do we have for a faith? We wouldn't be able to have confidence in going to Heaven because we really wouldn't know what the point of the Bible was. Also, just because humans say or write something it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be taken literally. When a professor teaches you Math, should you take it metaphorically? Only if you want an F.
QUOTE:
|
Up until I read this, even though I really disagreed with you, I didn't disrespect you. Who the hell do you think you are to tell me that I'm not a true Christian just because I don't agree with your view of life? I argued hard against you, maybe I was harshly sarcastic at some points, but I never questioned your beliefs or your intelligence, just the facts you put forward. You crossed the line with me on that one.
|
Sorry, if I offended you but the Law can hurt. A True Christian is one who believes the True Faith and trusts solely in what the Bible says. If you pick and choose, then you really can't be considered to be a Christian. Many people call themselves that but really aren't. I was more saying this to the entire community of so-called "Christians" then a personal attack. Once again, sorry, but it needed to be said.
QUOTE:
|
Frankly, I suppose I'll give another few responses if you reply directly to me, but I won't ramble on at length like this again for this topic. It's obvious you aren't just suddenly going to change what you think because some random guy disagrees with you on a video game forum. I only ask that, considering how young you are, that you keep an open mind in the future, and at least continue to give other theories like evolution fair consideration and not immediately dismiss them as wrong. Heck, I'm pretty young myself, and I'll continue to keep an open mind towards your point of view. However, at the moment I think the evidence for evolution continues to mount more and more strongly with each passing year.
|
That's funny, I think that the evidence for Creation "continues to mount more and more strongly with each passing year". Just a difference in interpretation. I do remain open-minded as I argue; I just have very strong opinions based on facts that I have seen through my early years. I assume that you are remaining open-minded also and I am glad of that. I just see more evidence of Creation then Evolution.
This post was so long that I had to make it into two posts.