Intelligent Design/Evolution Debate

archaeologist · Post by **archaeologist** » Thu May 03, 2007 1:53 pm

what i find 'funny' is that the a person who is asked the question is telling the questioner what it means.

IT WASN'T A GENETIC QUESTION!!!!!!!!!!!!

zoegirl · Post by **zoegirl** » Thu May 03, 2007 1:53 pm

No, I am sorry, I should have checked my post again. I did not mean to lump everything he said as seeing all science as evil (although on other threads besides this one he clearly sees huge problems with it)
Bad generalization on my part

Unfortunatley, I do see many that do have in their mind an equation that simply read "evolution bad, evolutionists use science, science bad". I think too that I remember these more because their response is sooo vehement, claiming heresy if I even bring up OEC or microevolution

Sorry

zoegirl · Post by **zoegirl** » Thu May 03, 2007 2:04 pm

archaeologist wrote:what i find 'funny' is that the a person who is asked the question is telling the questioner what it means.

IT WASN'T A GENETIC QUESTION!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, boy
First of all, you aren't at all telling me what it means. I understand the question. The answer requires addressing genetics (and if you think it doesn't, TELL ME WHY, don't just continue screaming "IT WASN"T A GENETIC QUESTION")

Again. ANYTIME you ask about ANYTHING to do with populations responding to an environmental change, it will have to do with genetics.

Let me give you another example. People who have the GENES (genetics!!!) for sickle cell anemia actually can resist malaria (ENVIRONMENT!!) better than those who only have the normal gene for hemoglobin (GENETICS!!). Those countries with a high rate of malaria (ENVIRONMENT!!) have a higher percentage of people carrying the GENE for sickele cell.

You asked whether I thought the polar bears were the result of microevolution or humans influence. GIVEN THAT MICROEVOLUTION DEALS WITH GENETICS, HOW IN THE WORLD CAN ANYBODY ADDRESS THIS WITHOUT BRINGING UP GENES AND GENETICS!!

AGAIN, I presented very clear points that deal with microevolution. YOU HAVE YET TO ANSWER MY QUESTIONS THAT DEAL WITH MICROEVOLUTION. How can I even take you seriously if you won't address my points? You claim my conclusions are "poop" and "misleading". THis should be child's play for you, then to crumble my misleading points.

WHAT ABOUT EACH OF THOSE POINTS DON"T YOU AGREE WITH!?

If you need a reminder

I've thought about it and let me put things down in a sort of proof. We can then take things one by one.

1) Would you agree that species in a population have various phenotypes? There are differences in charactieristics. There may be polar bears with longer claws or some with shorter claws. Some finches with bigger beaks and some with smaller?

2) Do you agree that these characteristics may be controlled by genes. That is, some of us have genes for blue eyes and some for brown eyes? The finches with bigger beaks have genes that code for bigger beaks, conversely the finches with smaller beaks have the genes that code for smaller beaks. NOTICE THAT NOWHERE AM I SAYING THAT THESE ARE MISTAKES BY GOD. God designed some of us with some genes and others with other genes.

3) Would you agree that these characteristics governed by genes SOMETIMES fit the environment better. than other characteristics. The larger beaks can exert exert more force than smaller beaks and thus break open larger seeds. Conversely, the smaller beaks can open seeds with less energy needed to built the beak. Polar bears with longer claws may be able to break open thicker ice.

4) Do you agree that environments can fluctuate with regards to resources? Some years more rain, more seeds, more salmon, less salmon, more wind, less wind, less oxygen dissolved in water...etc

5) Would these changes in the environment mean that some animals (or plants) within the population might have characteristics that fit the resources available. Again, some years the finches with larger beaks might fit the bill (oh, that was bad!) whereas other years with more rain different seeds, smaller beaks might suffice.

6) If the finches with larger beaks have more babies that year and conversely the finches with smaller beaks have fewer babies that year, then they pass down their genes for larger beaks and then the next generation of finches will have a higher frequency of finches with larger beaks. Maybe this year the rainfall is different and the opposite matings occur. the next generation will switch back to smaller beaks.

7) Now, whether or not these environmental changes occur as a result of normal shifts in weather patterns or the influence of man, the animals (and plants) will survive or reproduce according to their matching the environment. Thus, (AGAIN! in fact I think three times now) IF we are changing the environment of the polar bears and IF this is change is too drastic for the polar bears (ie they do not have the necessary genes to allow some of them to match the environment) then they will die. It is selection, but it is selection brought about by our influence (bolded so it is clear that this is my answer) it is both. It does not have to be one or the other despite your insistence.

Now, all of these are the basic elements (some other stuff about competition and resources but we'll start there) of natural selection. The evolutionist may claim that this is without God but that is THEIR statement. Nothing in here excludes God. Notice that right now there is nothing about changing species. Evolutionists will include a last postulate which is the "over time, mutations build up and new selective pressures may bring about speciation" . This is where the evolutionists and I part ways. At this time I am not convinved that mutations have the power to have brought about the changes they claim. However, God would have created species to be able to withstand minor fluctuations in their niches because of the differences in genes (NOT MISTAKES!) allows for minor changes in repoductive succes.

archaeologist · Post by **archaeologist** » Thu May 03, 2007 2:36 pm

micr0-evolution does not exist, neither does evolution. do we have any scriptural account that describes God creating the process of evolution?

the theory of evolution is a human construct designed to detour people from what God has done. 2 peter 3:3ff you might want to thro in 2 Thess. 2 as well.

The answer requires addressing genetics

NO IT DOESN"T. i am the questioner, i know what it requires, you obviously do not.

Again. ANYTIME you ask about ANYTHING to do with populations responding to an environmental change, it will have to do with genetics

NO it doesn't. i gave an example and you denied it right away.

this is a prime example of people who look to prove their studies in everything even when they do not apply.

Enigma7457 · Post by **Enigma7457** » Thu May 03, 2007 2:50 pm

Okay, i closed out solitaire on my computer and am ready to go...

micr0-evolution does not exist, neither does evolution. do we have any scriptural account that describes God creating the process of evolution?

Do we have any scriptural accounts of the laws of Gravity? Or how the heart beats? Or any number of other misc. items the bible does not cover? The Bible is not a catch all. many things (all unimportant to our salvation) are not covered. Just because the bible doesnt' brings it up doesn't mean the bible says it isn't true.

Quote:
The answer requires addressing genetics

NO IT DOESN"T. i am the questioner, i know what it requires, you obviously do not.

I don't completely understand genetics. Arch, would you mind EXPLAINING to me why the question doesn't involve it? I think zoe has done a well enough job of explaining why it does, and just to continually shouting that it doesn't isn't going to change my mind.

NO it doesn't. i gave an example and you denied it right away.

If you're referring to the Tsunami example, i think i might cry.

Now, i'm off to play some freecell (I'm at work, gotta stay busy).

Enigma7457 · Post by **Enigma7457** » Thu May 03, 2007 2:53 pm

Ummm....

Does anyone know how to play freecell?

BGoodForGoodSake · Post by **BGoodForGoodSake** » Thu May 03, 2007 2:56 pm

archaeologist wrote:micr0-evolution does not exist, neither does evolution. do we have any scriptural account that describes God creating the process of evolution?

the theory of evolution is a human construct designed to detour people from what God has done. 2 peter 3:3ff you might want to thro in 2 Thess. 2 as well.

The answer requires addressing genetics
NO IT DOESN"T. i am the questioner, i know what it requires, you obviously do not.

Again. ANYTIME you ask about ANYTHING to do with populations responding to an environmental change, it will have to do with genetics
NO it doesn't. i gave an example and you denied it right away.

this is a prime example of people who look to prove their studies in everything even when they do not apply.

I am a bit confused, you original question was as follows.
"do you call the drowning of the polar bears because of the shrinking glaciers, micro-evolution or part of life caused by the greenhouse affect created by human industrialization? "
The choices were micro-evolution and greenhouse effect.

But you state above that one of the options does not exist. Namely microevolution.
Why ask a question in which there is only one(In your worldview) possible answer?

Was this then a rhetorical question?
Apparantly not due to your insistence that some answer it.

archaeologist wrote:so i am waiting for an answer to my question. it is not a hard one to answer nor does it need long clarifications. it is a simple question asking what you attribute their plight.

archaeologist wrote:don't give me [poop], just an answer.

archaeologist wrote:you didn't answer the question.

Which leads to the confusion I mentioned earlier...

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Thu May 03, 2007 3:15 pm

Enigma7457 wrote:Do we have any scriptural accounts of the laws of Gravity? Or how the heart beats? Or any number of other misc. items the bible does not cover?

True there are many things the Bible does not specifically address. The difference I see here, is evolution is being used to replace God is some ways and this is what makes it significant. The implication that evolution, micro or macro supports life and survivability somehow seems to diminish God.

Perhaps the question and point of Arch's question is - it is possible that species can live and die and go existinct and it is not a genetic issue but the natural order of things as ordained by God.

zoegirl · Post by **zoegirl** » Thu May 03, 2007 3:25 pm

Enigma7457 wrote:Ummm....

Does anyone know how to play freecell?

Yep, I'm rather good

How uch info you want.

zoegirl · Post by **zoegirl** » Thu May 03, 2007 3:43 pm

YOu asked about the change in the polar bears changing environment and what is responsible.

If I believe that GOd has created these animals with a certain range of genes that allow them to exist in environments with minor fluctuations, then by changing the environment beyond that range of genetics, then they will die.

This is as simple as a geometry proof, If then statements.

You know, I am tired of always being the one willing to explain my positions. Arch, I have given points. You say they are "poop" and "misleading". if they are so easy to refute, refute. EACH ONE, tell me why I am wrong.

I must conclude you are not up to this challenge because you are wimping out.

Gee, let me predict what you will respond with ....hmmm....Oh wait "THIS IS NOT A GENETICS QUESTION!!!" and you will still not have answered my points. You can scream this all you want but you have not proved it. SAying it isnt' will not show me how I am wrong.

archaeologist · Post by **archaeologist** » Thu May 03, 2007 4:01 pm

bgfgs reprinted the question and it calls for a personal assessment of a situation. nothing to do with genetics

But you state above that one of the options does not exist. Namely microevolution.
Why ask a question in which there is only one(In your worldview) possible answer

because there is a point to be made which has been lost because someone kept avoiding answering the question.

the other thing i can illustrate here is the idea that the person being asked the question thinks they know more than the creator of the question. this same attitude is seen in people who question God and use science to say He is wrong.

They think they know more than the person who originated the flood and who was there doing the deed. these people think they know better or more than God and they don't.

we are , for argument sake, 3000 +/- years removed from the incident, do you really think you know more than those who were there?

anyways my original point has been lost as i had to answer the question and then point out that micro-evolution does not exist, especially for those who believe in Christ, since we have no record of Him creating the process. if one, who believes in God, wants to be consistant with what they believe, then at no time can evolution be credited for anything.

everything is done according to how God decreed it.

zoegirl · Post by **zoegirl** » Thu May 03, 2007 4:23 pm

Whee, this is fun, going around in circles...again here are the points....

1) Would you agree that species in a population have various phenotypes? There are differences in charactieristics. There may be polar bears with longer claws or some with shorter claws. Some finches with bigger beaks and some with smaller?

2) Do you agree that these characteristics may be controlled by genes. That is, some of us have genes for blue eyes and some for brown eyes? The finches with bigger beaks have genes that code for bigger beaks, conversely the finches with smaller beaks have the genes that code for smaller beaks. NOTICE THAT NOWHERE AM I SAYING THAT THESE ARE MISTAKES BY GOD. God designed some of us with some genes and others with other genes.

3) Would you agree that these characteristics governed by genes SOMETIMES fit the environment better. than other characteristics. The larger beaks can exert exert more force than smaller beaks and thus break open larger seeds. Conversely, the smaller beaks can open seeds with less energy needed to built the beak. Polar bears with longer claws may be able to break open thicker ice.

4) Do you agree that environments can fluctuate with regards to resources? Some years more rain, more seeds, more salmon, less salmon, more wind, less wind, less oxygen dissolved in water...etc

5) Would these changes in the environment mean that some animals (or plants) within the population might have characteristics that fit the resources available. Again, some years the finches with larger beaks might fit the bill (oh, that was bad!) whereas other years with more rain different seeds, smaller beaks might suffice.

6) If the finches with larger beaks have more babies that year and conversely the finches with smaller beaks have fewer babies that year, then they pass down their genes for larger beaks and then the next generation of finches will have a higher frequency of finches with larger beaks. Maybe this year the rainfall is different and the opposite matings occur. the next generation will switch back to smaller beaks.

7) Now, whether or not these environmental changes occur as a result of normal shifts in weather patterns or the influence of man, the animals (and plants) will survive or reproduce according to their matching the environment. Thus, (AGAIN! in fact I think three times now) IF we are changing the environment of the polar bears and IF this is change is too drastic for the polar bears (ie they do not have the necessary genes to allow some of them to match the environment) then they will die. It is selection, but it is selection brought about by our influence (bolded so it is clear that this is my answer) it is both. It does not have to be one or the other despite your insistence.

Now, all of these are the basic elements (some other stuff about competition and resources but we'll start there) of natural selection. The evolutionist may claim that this is without God but that is THEIR statement. Nothing in here excludes God. Notice that right now there is nothing about changing species. Evolutionists will include a last postulate which is the "over time, mutations build up and new selective pressures may bring about speciation" . This is where the evolutionists and I part ways. At this time I am not convinved that mutations have the power to have brought about the changes they claim. However, God would have created species to be able to withstand minor fluctuations in their niches because of the differences in genes (NOT MISTAKES!) allows for minor changes in repoductive succes.

None is this is disputing God, I believe He decreed the above as well. Still awaiting your answers. At least I answered yours, you just don't agree with it. You aren't even addressing mine. Hmm...

archaeologist · Post by **archaeologist** » Thu May 03, 2007 6:37 pm

I don't completely understand genetics. Arch, would you mind EXPLAINING to me why the question doesn't involve it? I think zoe has done a well enough job of explaining why it does, and just to continually shouting that it doesn't isn't going to change my mind

sorry i missed it. the reason it has nothing to do with genetics is that the question was calling for a personal opinion on a situation that is not genetically related. i wanted to see what the person's position was and how they would label the polar bear's troubles.

someone i know came in and reviewed the question and answer and could not believe the person missed the point. they told me later that the question was very simple, and didn't require a phd or an above average intelligence to answer it.

Do we have any scriptural accounts of the laws of Gravity?

maybe not in those words but there are indicators, i believe Job 38 would touch on it in its style of writing. i will have to check. but in any case even if it doesn't, we have numerous scriptures which specifically cite creation not any evolutionary method or process, then we have Jesus words:

" i go and prepare a place for You, if it were not so, I would have told you."

so if any other method was used, we would have been told.

If you're referring to the Tsunami example, i think i might cry.

she said any change at any time so it was a good example along with mt. st. helens, the new orleans hurricanes and so on. also the reason one cannot solely depend on genectics is because it does not take into account the spiritual factor, both good and evil. genetics like any other science is very limited.

we are not a being that is programmed, we have options which genetics does not take into account.

** as i said, the conversation with zoegirl is closed, she is still harping on genetics when it isn't a genetical discussion.

zoegirl · Post by **zoegirl** » Thu May 03, 2007 6:42 pm

And you wonder why evolutionists don't talk to you.

Despite what you claim you have little understanding

You love to puff up your experience claiming that you debate all the time and that my statements are "poop" and misleading and yet you can't even address the simplest of statements concenrning genetics and populations.

Let this be clear. YOU ended this conversation withouth refuting ANY of the statements. YOu have no arguements.

zoegirl · Post by **zoegirl** » Thu May 03, 2007 6:43 pm

Genetical !?!??!?