Evidence for God from Science

I don't necessarily regret how i came to CHrist. What i do regret is that is seems to hinder my spiritual growth. I feel a lot like doubting THomas: But Blessed are those who have not seen and still believe (people like my wife).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enigma7457 wrote:
I think i get what you're saying about testing God. I guess i agree, in part. As long as we never say, God wouldn't have done that, then we are safe (But apparently we did with the Junk DNA).

Back to the Apemen. Another question (Again, feel free to correct me, you're actually pretty good at it): Why are so frail? If an Ape is strong, and we evolved mentally from an Ape, why did we not retain the Ape's strength? Granted, the strength wasn't as necesary any more since we are now smarter, wouldn't being smarter and stronger be more fit? You know, like planet of the apes?


zoegirl wrote
according to the evolutionists, our increased brain size gave us an advantage in strategic hunting and defense. Making tools for defense and thus not needing the strength. This allowed the humans who were not necessarily strong to still have an advantage and survive and reproduce.

But wouldn't a strong and smart man be better? Survival of the fittest. If i was as strong as an ape and as smart as you, i bet i could survive longer.

And where did the sexes come in? It seems like a bigger leap of faith to assume that the entire male and female reproductive organs (not to mention the fact that the animals the organs "evolved" in would need to seek each other out and...you know) could evolve simoultaneously is a larger leap of faith than accepting Christ.

archaeologist wrote:

The polar bears are an interesting case. First and foremost we need more information

you didn't answer the question.

We don't have to outright throw away everything that has to do with the evolutionary theory

yes we do. for if we believe that God set everything up then evolution doesn't exist, nor can it exist. everything works as God laid it out. evolution plays no part in the equation at all.

First let's examine the points of natural selection (which i mainly feel stabilizes populations).

natural selection is not of God why would you keep using it?

Jacob himself choose which sheep to breed and he manipulated the population gene frequencies. This is all natural selection does

that is not natural selection but freedom of choice and preference. there is no room to compromise. either the evolutionary process is wrong and did not exist or God's plan is wrong and did not exist.

you cannot combine the two nor take the parts you like and use them.

I think God in His wisdom created the flexibility within species to change within moderately changing environments

again that is not natural selection but God ordering the universe.

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.

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

First and foremost....if this is how you argue, then you certainly won;t win any debate. YOu sound like my students..."it's stupid" please don't refer to my responses as your euphimistic "poop". As much as I have been tempted to respond to some of your statements as such, I would rather debate the points. I was not shirking your question. Be polite, I have been, even in the light of not so polite responses. We are both Christians. This is as juvenile as it gets. I gave you a reply....I don't have enough information. However, becaues you think this somehow is the magic question I will gladly address it.

IF we are messing up the environment drastically, then the population of bears do not have the necessary phenotypes to withstand that change in the environment . I stated before in my posts that I believe that God created species to have the ability to withstand minor fluctuations. The changes in Global warming (if this is the case...) would not allow for quick adjustments in the populations. THis is a case where our influence changed the environment too quickly too dratically and the phenotypes are not there to allow for succes. I think here the human influence (again, if this is happening) leads to a microevolution event that then leads to most polar bears either dying or migrating. UNfortunatley, this microevolution event means that most do not fit the new environment.

I think goes to point out the limitations of these abilites to match the niche requirements. In fact, again shows that selection itself does not lead to large scale changes.

For an exmaple without human influence
IF, for instance, the ice became thicker so that only those polar bears with longer claws and stronger arms could push through the ice, then those that do have these would survive and reproduce mre and thus the next generation would have a higher percentage of bears with longer claws and stronger arms. That would be a more appropriate God-given response to the environment.

My point about Jacob that you have comletely missed is that changes in population frequencies can absolutely occur. YES, JACOB CHOOSE THE SHEEP, I never said he didn't. However, it goes to show that populations have different phenotypes and they can change gene frequencies within generations. These changes have limits, but you can observe them . Finches over several generations show changes in beak size according to rainy and dry seasons. Far from supporting large scale changes, this study merely showed that populations can fluctuate over several generations according to the environment. These changes have limits, as any dog breeder will tell you.

YOu are arguing about semantics....yes I know that God ordered the universe. I said this in my previous posts!!. Unfortunatley, we are stuck with the word for awhile. MAybe God given ability to match God given niche within God given limits? little wordy

Enigma7457 wrote:I don't necessarily regret how i came to CHrist. What i do regret is that is seems to hinder my spiritual growth. I feel a lot like doubting THomas: But Blessed are those who have not seen and still believe (people like my wife).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enigma7457 wrote:
I think i get what you're saying about testing God. I guess i agree, in part. As long as we never say, God wouldn't have done that, then we are safe (But apparently we did with the Junk DNA).

Back to the Apemen. Another question (Again, feel free to correct me, you're actually pretty good at it): Why are so frail? If an Ape is strong, and we evolved mentally from an Ape, why did we not retain the Ape's strength? Granted, the strength wasn't as necesary any more since we are now smarter, wouldn't being smarter and stronger be more fit? You know, like planet of the apes?


zoegirl wrote
according to the evolutionists, our increased brain size gave us an advantage in strategic hunting and defense. Making tools for defense and thus not needing the strength. This allowed the humans who were not necessarily strong to still have an advantage and survive and reproduce.

But wouldn't a strong and smart man be better? Survival of the fittest. If i was as strong as an ape and as smart as you, i bet i could survive longer.

And where did the sexes come in? It seems like a bigger leap of faith to assume that the entire male and female reproductive organs (not to mention the fact that the animals the organs "evolved" in would need to seek each other out and...you know) could evolve simoultaneously is a larger leap of faith than accepting Christ.

You bring up good points! And at first this would have been the case with their model of Neanderthals, however, it is not solid evidence by any means. And once immediate threats were taken care of, it would not be a selective advantage to be so strong (muscle production is energetically expensive) in fact it could be counted a disadvantage.

IF fact, the problem of sex is still a huge debating point. If the entire goal of evolution is to transmit genes, then mixing genes with another organism (ie 46 chromsomes down to 23, you are only giving half your genes, and not only the good ones!). There are several theories but none that satisfy me.

Altruistic behavior is another problem, the development of morality another, mitosis, meiosis....yes, the list is long. I know they have theories for all of these (that was my graduate seminar class, all evolution), however, I am with you, worries about the probability of all these keep me shaking my head.

I gave you a reply....I don't have enough information

to me that isn't a reply, it is a scientist's way of avoiding giving a personal opinion. surely, with your stated credentials you can provide an answer just by looking at the situation and commenting.

My point about Jacob that you have comletely missed is that changes in population frequencies can absolutely occur. YES, JACOB CHOOSE THE SHEEP, I never said he didn't. However, it goes to show that populations have different phenotypes and they can change gene frequencies within generations

phenotypes have nothing to do with personal preference and in this situation would not be a factor. jacob simply prefered one type of sheep over another for various reasons.

Finches over several generations show changes in beak size according to rainy and dry seasons.

this doesn't demonstrate micro evolution but that God prepared His creation to face what comes in life. you can't give credit to both God and evolution, the two are contridictatroy and non-compatible especially if you believe God created everything.

throughout history 'believers' have tried to make christianity attractive to the non-believer,so they adapt the secular thinking and practices to add to the christian life. doesn't work that way. the believer needs to stand upon what they believe and separate secular thought from christian and demonstrate what they believe and not show off a compromise.

all you are doing is saying that the secularist thinking is partially right when it isn't.

IF, for instance, the ice became thicker so that only those polar bears with longer claws and stronger arms could push through the ice, then those that do have these would survive and reproduce mre and thus the next generation would have a higher percentage of bears with longer claws and stronger arms. That would be a more appropriate God-given response to the environment

that is not a God given response because you have no idea if the bears with longer claws would spawn offspring with the same length of claws. you can guess they would but it is not a given.

i see this as an evolutionary answer which doesn't belong in christianity and by the way, longer claws do not help when the glacier is melting.

I don't necessarily regret how i came to CHrist. What i do regret is that is seems to hinder my spiritual growth. I feel a lot like doubting THomas: But Blessed are those who have not seen and still believe (people like my wife

i wouldn't regret or demean how you came to Christ, just be thankful that God used what was at His disposal and you made the right decision.

i don't doubt that God uses many things but that doesn't mean that we are always pursuing the right course, it just means that God has been limited to use what has been made available to Him.

i have gone through many of the arguments of i.d. and find that it is not a strong theory. they need to clean it up some and make a clear stand on what they believe instead of doing an end run.

first, saying God created is not in conflict with science. since we can study the results of creation, we have all the scientific proof we need.

second, our mission is not to solely enter into the science classroom. we are to preach and teach the truth. does that mean we have to be in public school to do that? why can't christians open schools and make it available {affordably} to the public?

they do not need to preach a salvation message everyday but they can educate properly and provide an alternative to public schools. there are far better options than trying to force oneself and ones views on a public that may not want such teaching in the public classroom.

providing an alternative does more good than fighting in the courtroom.

And where did the sexes come in? It seems like a bigger leap of faith to assume that the entire male and female reproductive organs (not to mention the fact that the animals the organs "evolved" in would need to seek each other out and...you know) could evolve simoultaneously is a larger leap of faith than accepting Christ

two things here, first... you have to decide and figure out why evolution 'thought' it necessary to evolve reproduction organs when it had no need for them.

second, you must come to grips with how a non-thinking, non-feeling, non-knowing process could conceive of such an option? if you take a close look at evolutionist thiking you will see them attribute characteristics a process shouldn't have or be capable of operating.

they give evolution God-like qualities but then argue it is merely a process. well a process can't do anything they attribute to it, it can only perform in a limited capacity and is unable to deviate from that.

there is nothing in the theory that allows evolution to initiate natural selection nor decide what organs a species should have or even if they have the right order of organs. let alone the right organs.

this is the problem with the theory and makes it dead before it gets out of the gate. the process contains nothing which would enable it to evolve what we see today. along with the fact it would need some exterior force to program its function and as it would be unable to exist from nothing itself.

archaeologist wrote:

I gave you a reply....I don't have enough information

to me that isn't a reply, it is a scientist's way of avoiding giving a personal opinion. surely, with your stated credentials you can provide an answer just by looking at the situation and commenting.

My point about Jacob that you have comletely missed is that changes in population frequencies can absolutely occur. YES, JACOB CHOOSE THE SHEEP, I never said he didn't. However, it goes to show that populations have different phenotypes and they can change gene frequencies within generations

phenotypes have nothing to do with personal preference and in this situation would not be a factor. jacob simply prefered one type of sheep over another for various reasons.

Finches over several generations show changes in beak size according to rainy and dry seasons.

this doesn't demonstrate micro evolution but that God prepared His creation to face what comes in life. you can't give credit to both God and evolution, the two are contridictatroy and non-compatible especially if you believe God created everything.

throughout history 'believers' have tried to make christianity attractive to the non-believer,so they adapt the secular thinking and practices to add to the christian life. doesn't work that way. the believer needs to stand upon what they believe and separate secular thought from christian and demonstrate what they believe and not show off a compromise.

all you are doing is saying that the secularist thinking is partially right when it isn't.

IF, for instance, the ice became thicker so that only those polar bears with longer claws and stronger arms could push through the ice, then those that do have these would survive and reproduce mre and thus the next generation would have a higher percentage of bears with longer claws and stronger arms. That would be a more appropriate God-given response to the environment

that is not a God given response because you have no idea if the bears with longer claws would spawn offspring with the same length of claws. you can guess they would but it is not a given.

i see this as an evolutionary answer which doesn't belong in christianity and by the way, longer claws do not help when the glacier is melting.

YOu know, if you continue to miss points in my posts then this is ridiculous. I have never NOT attributed the reponse of species to GOD. PLEASE REREAD MY POSTINGS. I HAVE SAID REPEATEDLY THAT WHAT I FEEL NATURAL SELECTION IS REFLECTS GOD PROVIDING SPECIES WITH THE ABILITY TO CHANGE WITHIN LIMITS. THis matches, however, with what seleciton states. The evolutionists simply attributes it to no God, which I HAVE NEVER DONE.

"phenotypes have nothing to do with preferences" This would be news to all of the dog breeders who CHOSE their breeders according to phenotype!! Do you even know what phenotype means? It is simply the characteristics that are observable.

YES, phentotypes do have everything to do with Jacob choosing sheep. Jacob CHOOSE different phenotypes of sheep in order to increase the frequency of spotted sheep in order to gain wealth from his father-in-law. Laban's original herd had only a few spotted sheep. Jacob's deal with Laban must have seemd pretty stupid to Laban. Jacob only allowed the spotted sheep (the spotted phenotype) to breed, increasing the frequency of spotted sheep in the next generation. It shows that populations CAN change frequencies. I am simply substituting the environment for JAcob in the mechanism for what animasl breed. Which, AGAIN, is what we see populations do, change gene frequencies according to niche

As to the finches, REREAD MY STATEMENTS, I HAVE NEVER STATED THAT GOD IS NOT RESPONSIBLE. YOu have essentially agreed with me that finches changes with minor changes in the environment. This is what natural selection states!! We are simply saying that God has provided these abilities to fluctuate, whereas the evolutionist will say at best, we don't know, and at worst, that there is no God.

AS to the polar bears and claws, absolutely, we could know if the polar bear's claws are genetic. If the claws are dictated by genetic traits, then those bears with longer claws (driven by instructions from genes) that survive and reproduce will PASS ON THOSE GENES to the next generation, increasing the frequency of these genes, thus increasing the number of polar bears with longer claws. No I don't know IF they are, I am saying that it is quite possible to figure out. Many, Many experiments have been done to test whether characteristics are genetically based or not. We could do this easily with the bears (provising we got the grant money ) Maybe the claws are and maybe they aren't. ONLY that IF the claws are genetically based, then they would change the next generation. And yes, this again, would be part of God's provision for the animal to survive minor fluctuations in the environment.

"LOnger claws do not help when the ice is melting" READ MY POSTS!!! I gave the example of IF the ice is MORE THICK. (this would be an example of me biting my tongue...I really, really wish you would COMPLETELY read my statements) I gave you TWO examples!

I am not changing to make this more appealing to the secular believer. Believe me, atheist evolutionists would still laugh their heads off at my beliefs. Agnostic evolutionists who are more friendly would simply say we will never know and we can never test. My beliefs are not because of any goal of compromise. Long ago, I decided that I would examine the research with the goal of determining what is in accordance to scripture and what is not.

AGAIN, selection (the name that evolutionists have used) is simply what we observe if populations change in their ESTABLISHED characteristic frequency's because of differential reproduction and survival. While evolution does not attribute this to God....I have no problem doing so and NOT because of any feeling of compromise.


And for the record, I did reply to your question. YOu simply DO NOT READ MY STATEMENTS!!

no you did not answer my question as i read your statements and you went to the size of claws which has nothing to do with what i asked. here it is again:

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

this is not a genetic question but a question based upon a true situation which is happening right now.

NATURAL SELECTION

maybe i just disagree with the term natural selection.

YES, phentotypes do have everything to do with Jacob choosing sheep

that is not natural selection but a shrewd business move, which is being manipulated by an outside force.

It shows that populations CAN change frequencies

with help. which is not natural selection but an outside force becoming involved in a given population. same as dog breeders, what they are doing is not natural selection but selection due to preference from a cognitive decision based upon given factors.

YOu have essentially agreed with me that finches changes with minor changes in the environment.

not 'with' but 'for'.

gave the example of IF the ice is MORE THICK

this was not the question asked, you changed the topic to fit what you wanted to say and avoided answering what was proposed. longer claws have nothing to do with what i asked. (sorry to repetitive but i went out of order).

Believe me, atheist evolutionists would still laugh their heads off at my beliefs

if that is all you get consider yourself lucky. yes they would laugh because of their unbelief and how much they have been deceived.

This would be news to all of the dog breeders who CHOSE their breeders according to phenotype!

but that is a business decision based upon cognitive reasoning which eliminates the possibility of being natural. it still has little to do with preference because someone would prefer one breed over another based just on looks or it is the fad pet to have. i.e.--dalmations of a few years ago when the movie, 101 dalmations was released in live action.

zoegirl wrote:IF we are messing up the environment drastically, then the population of bears do not have the necessary phenotypes to withstand that change in the environment . I stated before in my posts that I believe that God created species to have the ability to withstand minor fluctuations. The changes in Global warming (if this is the case...) would not allow for quick adjustments in the populations. THis is a case where our influence changed the environment too quickly too dratically and the phenotypes are not there to allow for succes. I think here the human influence (again, if this is happening) leads to a microevolution event that then leads to most polar bears either dying or migrating. UNfortunatley, this microevolution event means that most do not fit the new environment.

Yes, I believe I did answer it. If the glaciers are indeed melting, then this would NOT be a minor change. So the bears' phenotypes would not be within this change.

archaeologist wrote:no you did not answer my question as i read your statements and you went to the size of claws which has nothing to do with what i asked. here it is again:

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

this is not a genetic question but a question based upon a true situation which is happening right now.

It is always a genetic question. If the bears do not have the genes coordinating with the phenotypes then they will die if the environment changes

archaeologist wrote:

NATURAL SELECTION

maybe i just disagree with the term natural selection.

Probably

archaeologist wrote:

YES, phentotypes do have everything to do with Jacob choosing sheep

that is not natural selection but a shrewd business move, which is being manipulated by an outside force.

It shows that populations CAN change frequencies

with help. which is not natural selection but an outside force becoming involved in a given population. same as dog breeders, what they are doing is not natural selection but selection due to preference from a cognitive decision based upon given factors.

YOu have essentially agreed with me that finches changes with minor changes in the environment.

not 'with' but 'for'.

It was a shrew business move, based on changing what sheep were mated. IT SHOWS THAT frequencies can change. For example, if spots gave better camouflage, we would probably see this cahnge occur because the sheep may be able to survive.

archaeologist wrote:

gave the example of IF the ice is MORE THICK

this was not the question asked, you changed the topic to fit what you wanted to say and avoided answering what was proposed. longer claws have nothing to do with what i asked. (sorry to repetitive but i went out of order).

I DID ANSWER THE QUESTION, SEE PREVIOUS POST, I GAVE TWO EXAMPLES, ONE WITH HUMAN INFLUENCE AND ONE WITHOUT. YES, HUMANS MIGHT BE INFLUENCING THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES. IF THESE CHANGES ARE TOO SUDDEN, THEN THE BEARS MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO SURVIVE. IT IS BOTH THEN HUMANS AND MICROEVOLUTION. (HUMANS CHANGE THE ENVIRONMENT, BEARS EITHER SURVIVE OR NOT ACCORDING TO PHENOTYPES)

archaeologists wrote:

Believe me, atheist evolutionists would still laugh their heads off at my beliefs

if that is all you get consider yourself lucky. yes they would laugh because of their unbelief and how much they have been deceived.

Then you can see that what you call my "attempts" to lure secular thinkers is ridiculous. I will never compromise as to WHO is responsible for these changes.

archaeologist wrote:

This would be news to all of the dog breeders who CHOSE their breeders according to phenotype!

but that is a business decision based upon cognitive reasoning which eliminates the possibility of being natural. it still has little to do with preference because someone would prefer one breed over another based just on looks or it is the fad pet to have. i.e.--dalmations of a few years ago when the movie, 101 dalmations was released in live action.

YES, BUT, IF there are changes in teh environment, these changes will cause some animals to survive and reproduce better. (understand, I am not saying that somehow selection is intelligent). I am simply saying that the populations will shift in frequencies according to the matching of the environment. You stated that phenotypes are irrelevant. If finches with bigger beaks are better able to feed on tougher seeds produced in dry seasons, these phenotypes will survive better. Conversely, if in the next season, more rain falls, the finches with smaller beaks can better utilize the softer smaller seeds the next generation will have higher frequencies of finches iwht smaller beaks. NOW, these will never change the fact that they are finches, simply means they will be able to match minor fluctuations in the environment, which I believe, once again, that God has placed.

It is always a genetic question

no it isn't for if it was thenyou are saying God made mistakes, did not design the animal proeprly or lied when He said what He created was good.

genetics has nothing to do with the question i asked. i was very specific, looking for a simple answer. WHAT DO YOU CALL IT... there was no room for anything but an either or answer. you avoided the issue by going off on some tangent which wasn't part of the question.

If the bears do not have the genes coordinating with the phenotypes then they will die if the environment changes

not at all. since God made the animals in a certain way, genetics is not responsible when the enviorment changes, nor is God. God did not make animals with the capability to make massive body changes thus genetics plays a minute role if any at all.

your line of thinking wold allow the argument, that the death toll of the s.e. asian tsunami was because genetically, humans were not ready to face the change in their enviorment.

that thinking is just ludicrious. when the polar bears start drowning because their glaciers are melting, it is not because God did not program the genes correctly to adapt. no, polar bears were made correctly to meet their respective enviorment but when that change happens it is not because of natural selection nor micro-evolution, it is because it is a result of poor cognitive thinking and industrialization, which is not part of the concept of natural.

so i am still waiting for an answer--is it micro-evolution or results of industrialization?

archaeologist wrote:

It is always a genetic question

no it isn't for if it was thenyou are saying God made mistakes, did not design the animal proeprly or lied when He said what He created was good.

genetics has nothing to do with the question i asked. i was very specific, looking for a simple answer. WHAT DO YOU CALL IT... there was no room for anything but an either or answer. you avoided the issue by going off on some tangent which wasn't part of the question.

If the bears do not have the genes coordinating with the phenotypes then they will die if the environment changes

I am sorry but you do not understand the basics of biology. All of our different phenotype, blond hair, brown hair, black hair, blue eyes, enzyme production...all of them are governed by genes. COllectively these genes make up our gene pool. Now unless you are saying tht we are all the same (which I assume you aren't), then all of us have different genes. NOt a problem, GOd made us with these differenct genes. NOT A MISTAKe.

archaeologist wrote: not at all. since God made the animals in a certain way, genetics is not responsible when the enviorment changes, nor is God. God did not make animals with the capability to make massive body changes thus genetics plays a minute role if any at all.

Again, God make polar bears with slight variations in genes. genestics is absolutely responsible for different characteristics. How can you even make this claim? Cystic fibrosis, Sickle cell anemia, HUntingtons, albino, I could list more but I have to make this quick. I am not saying God is not ultimatley responsible but YOU cannot make the claim that we do not have genetic variations.

archaeologist wrote: your line of thinking wold allow the argument, that the death toll of the s.e. asian tsunami was because genetically, humans were not ready to face the change in their enviorment.

No, NO NO!!
Oh, please, please READ my posts. My statements never lead to this. The situations are completely different and your argument is laughable. The Tsumani happened within HOURS. Not an equitable comparison. The changes in the ice floes (which I stated I am unsure of the data, I am saying IF) and such that the bears are not equipped for these large changes.

archaeologist wrote: that thinking is just ludicrious. when the polar bears start drowning because their glaciers are melting, it is not because God did not program the genes correctly to adapt. no, polar bears were made correctly to meet their respective enviorment but when that change happens it is not because of natural selection nor micro-evolution, it is because it is a result of poor cognitive thinking and industrialization, which is not part of the concept of natural.

Ok, we agree to the poor management from humans, not a problem. And I do agree that God did not provide the flexibility to meet these changes. Never said he didn't. HOWEVER, this means they will not succeed and reproduce...

archaeologist wrote: so i am still waiting for an answer--is it micro-evolution or results of industrialization?

I ahve answered your question. PLEASE REREAD MY POSTS. IHAVE SAID BEFORE....DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES WILL HAVE TO SAY IT....THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES MIGHT BE CAUSED BY HUMANS. THESE ENVIRONEMTNAL CHANGES FROM HUMANS MIGHT CREATE SUCH A LARGE SHIFT IN THE NICHE THAT THE POLAR BEARS MIGHT NOT HAVE THE GENETIC FLEXIBILITY TO SURVIVE. THIS WOULD STILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH NATURAL SELECTION, BUT THE SPECIES HERE CANNOT SURVIVE. SELECTION SIMPLY MEANS SURVIVAL ACCORDING TO THE NICHE AND HERE I WILL ADD SOMETHING THAT GOD PROVIDED.


One last time, I have answered it, I have not gotten off on a tangent, and if you would only read my posts you would see. this. You refuse to understand the basics of genetics

This is the frustration, by the way, that many scientists face when discussing this. People lack the basic understanding of genetics, do not read the research, then they want to argue what they don't understand. and then make ludicrous claims. No wonder that they get annoyed .

YOu don't read my posts you don't address the points and you clearly don't understand all of genetics.

YOu don't read my posts you don't address the points and you clearly don't understand all of genetics

thanks for the false accusations. i did read your posts and you did not answer my question. you went on some genetic tirade that helped you to avoid making a decision.

which is the problem with scientists. they get so caught up in their work they do not realize the reality of a simple question. i asked you spoecifically to take a side---either it was called micro-evolution OR a result from some other factor. you, like every other scientist, avoid making a stand and providing an answer .

you hem and haw, beat around the bush but you refuse to say this is it-- done deal. in other words you said--could be-- which is science's way of avoiding making a stand. well you are wrong and you fail.

the answer is: it is not micro-evolution. nor is it genetic as you so hope it to be. this is the problem with scientists, they become so self-absorbed in their work that they think they are the only ones who know anything and they don't.

genetics in this case, as i stated earlier,plays a minute role because genetics has boundaries. melting glaciers is not a situation which triggers a genetic response, it is a disaster brought on by irresponsible human behavior, greed and lust for power

you cannot blame genetics for sinful behavior. genetic research is like any other scientific field, it has boundaries and limitations and only arrogance leads the scientist into thinking they know it all.

the rest of your posts i had prepared a response but i find your denial to be disconcerting and my response would have been taken wrong so i cut it from the post.

i find that this discussion may lead to nowhere as you resorted to subtle insulting and denial which i find to be in poor taste and your acceptanceof evolutionary thinking is not correct which colors your observations.

compromise is not in God's nature, you will see that throughout the Bible and when someone who says they follow Christ accepts humanistic thinking and applies to their christian life is not seeing very clearly.

so i will end this discussion now and move onto another thread.

WOW did i pick a bad time to leave. I'm gone for a day and you two get out of control. What am i to do with you guys...

i find that this discussion may lead to nowhere as you resorted to subtle insulting

Just want to say, it was Arch who threw the first stone by calling Zoe's response (poop) (or however he writes it). If her insults (which i think are debatable) were subtle, yours were not.

I don't really have much else to say. From the looks of things, it would seem that there are some basic misunderstandings. Arch wants Zoe to take a side, and she said she didn't have all the facts. She made a statement (a fair statement) about what she THOUGHT. Then, she took what she knew and made a comparison (with the thick snow).

Both of you seem to agree that animals can't withstand largescale changes (the melting glaciers and the tsunami), but they seem to be able to withstand smaller ones (like the beak changes). You both simply call it different things. Natural Selection is the scientific term. And since God designed the animals (some with smaller beaks some with larger ones; some polar bears with bigger claws, some with smaller), he is at the root of Natural Selection, which is basically what zoe's been saying. (I hope neither of you minds the shortening of the names, i'm lazy)

I think that about sums it up. NOw, i'm enjoying watching this. It's more entertaining than television. Please continue

archaeologist wrote:

YOu don't read my posts you don't address the points and you clearly don't understand all of genetics

thanks for the false accusations. i did read your posts and you did not answer my question. you went on some genetic tirade that helped you to avoid making a decision.

archaeologist,

You seem to have a few misunderstandings regarding science. Science is about observations, we watch and observe to see what happens. It is not about making stands or taking sides. It assumes that there are no simple questions, everything even the most seemingly most obvious of answers cannot be taken as truth without a preponderence of evidence. And this evidence comes in the form of meticulous measurements tests and retests. And this truth is not absolute. This is is a testimony of our understanding that mankind and his knowledge is limited. That is the process of science.

archaeologist wrote:genetics in this case, as i stated earlier,plays a minute role because genetics has boundaries. melting glaciers is not a situation which triggers a genetic response, it is a disaster brought on by irresponsible human behavior, greed and lust for power

Genetics influences the bears physical characteristics. It is these physical characteristics which will determine whether or not these bears will survive a disaster. Do you disagree? If so please supply a line of reasoning. A simple no it's not so will not suffice. Why? Because naiveté does not lead to solid conclusions.

If I might ask, do you really believe you have a sufficient understanding of biology to make statements such as the one above. From what I have read I doubt you do. This is not meant as an insult just an observation.

Additionaly I believe you have misread zoegirl's responses. Please read posts more carefully before responding. Just my opinion.

Thanks