It looks like you are a Darwinist from your post. You parrot back out of the song book and call it proof. I am sorry to say that unless you can prove a mechanism to do all of these wonderful things you describe then I can't take you seriously.
wow, isn't that a great example of the pot calling the kettle black. I'm going to ignore the Anti-Darwinist rant and move on to the substance. Attacking someone's beliefs immediately decredits what you have to say. Creationists go on a book and nothing else and call that evidence... bla!
Name one, just one, any one, any bird, at any time during the last two hundred years
Macroevolution is not observable in that short amount of time. The fish I mention have been around for 3.5 millions years and they are still almost identical. Unless you can provide me with a time machine I cannot provide an example. Do do observe microevolution which IS EVOLUTION. Since these animals breed so rapidly and there are so many of them, we can observe evolution on a small scale. If evolution exists at the level of fruit flys and bacteria, who's to say that macroevolution isn't occurring on a different timescale?
A single neucleotide defect requires a billion host, a two neucleotide defect requires a trillion. The changes you are talking about require thousands if not millions of changes to the nuecleotides of the animals. If you want to be taken seriously then tell me how to build a species from another step by step using defects. Just name one step, from any species. Oh by the way each step must benefit the host or natural selection can't be used to make the next step. I know you can't. You will fall back on the tried old Darwin junk of waving your hands and saying the montra, millions and millions of years. It won't work any longer. That day is gone.
luck, luck, billions, trillions, bla bla bla. This is spewed by YEC's all the time. Instead of trying to disporve evolution, try and explain what we see in the world today by any other explanation. No one knows how speciation progressed because it happened before any scientist. We can only go on what is preserved. So no, I can't answer the question on how long it took for species A to turn into species B and what nucleotide changes were bebeficial, neutral, or negative. I don't think anyone can, creationist and evolutionist. I can ask you the same question: try and prove this "devolution" that creationists think occurred since Creation.
And the "Darwinists" (which is an annoying moniker) base their montra on scientific research. They didn't just pull this stuff out of their arses. You act like science has nothing better to do then disprove God. Far from it!
So it would be difficult to change my worldview with any new release of scientific data.
so if we found life on Mars or Europa, or discovered an alien civilization, this wouldn't change anything? Or you'd make up a new story supposedly found in Genesis?
Another false report came from Korea where a scientist reported great results from embryonic stem cells. It was known to be false. Some false reports take years to uncover, take Piltdown man. The vast amount of scientific data can never be examined by any one individual. So we are left with having the "experts" look at it for us.
I'd say they are more expert than any of us, unless you have a phD in archaeology, biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, etc. Out of the millions of scientific discoveries, you name a few that were mistakes. That's right, throw it all out because a few people got it wrong! Progress is the beauty of science, the fact that it is able to change makes it great. We aren't stuck with archaeic ideas and backwards theories. Notice that alot of the proposed mechanisms of evolution (inheritance of acquired characteristics for example) have been refuted and abandoned.
That is a tough question. We are to teach our kids that science has changed over the years and this years answers will be on the discard pile soon enough. We are to develope faith in what matters which is not man. We are supposed to help our fellow man in his quest for the true meaning of life. We are to be amazed at God's creation and thank Him for our existence.
That's why faith and science should be taught separately. The Bible is a moral and spiritual guide. It is too ambiguous and open to varied interpretations to be a science book. The fact that science changes is GOOD. That's why they update the textbooks every few years. I'd be willing to teach kids both creation and evolution and let them debate it.
I only came to this conclusion a few years ago after a major search of science
was this before or after you "found Jesus".
As for the comment about being accepted. In history we find many people who were rejected and killed for their words.
this goes both ways... Galileo and Copernicus were tortured and killed for their beliefs too. The Church was scared that their long-held belief system was false so they tried to silence the critics. Not the same situation today. You are part of a dying breed holding onto a archaeic Pre-Renaissance theory that has been bypassed by modern science.
The YEC comes in all forms. I have to agree that most YEC have not considered all of the available data and come up with theories that I see through quickly. God bless them for their effort but they should stick to other subjects.
that's what I say for YEC's and science, which would most likely get rid of them alltogether
You'd think if YEC's knew what they were talking about that they'd at least have their theories straight and share them. There are like 3-4 different theories out there for the origin and retreat of the Flood ALONE!!
Hard evidence of man goes back to around 3200 BC. This does not use atomic dating methods. Before this we suspect that a few buildings in Egypt may have survived the flood. Very hard to tell because the region was prone to local floods.
This is awfully "man-centric". Man only appears at the very top of the geologic column. It is naive to say that 99.9% of the rest of Earth's history fits into <1000 years. You say 3200BC, so thats 6200 years ao so according to creationists you have to fit pre-civilization man and all the prehistoric animals into 300-1500 years before the rise of Egypt/Mesopotamia.
It may be that the edge of the universe is indeed 15 billion years old and the earth is but 7700 years old.
this is an odd blend of Old Universe and Young Earth but I can;t accept a Universe 1000000000 years old and an Earth that is thousands. It is contrary to the evidence. Also, when you look at something 10 billion light years away, you are seeing it as it looked 10 billion years ago. So if the Universe isn't that old, how are you seeing something that old?
You are right I did not address this issue about the fish separated by land. Using my time line the fish were separated around 2900 BC when the single continent split apart. But lets just accept that the fish are different enough to be called different species. Now, what is the advantage of one species over the other. If we use natural selection one of these groups should have an advantage over the other. Has anyone figured out what one came first? If you combine them together do they drift back to one type? These pockets of mutated species have been seen before but when they get back together they go back to the original form.
I am not saying that mutations don't happen. I just want someone to show me where a mutation took over an existing population and the mutation made the species more able to compete in nature.
If the species in one group were different just because they lacked a complete set of gene combinations (inbreeding) due to a small population then this is not a new species. When someone breeds a dog they may get long hair, no tail, big ears,etc.
First sentence. The fish could not be separated in that matter. If you split apart a continent, aren't you opening up more seaways? How are the fish separated? If this was the case, the fish faunas of all oceans would be very similar since they were all originally in one big ocean. When this rise of the Isthmus of Panama occurred, the Eastern Pacific and Western Atlantic were already isolated from the Indo-Pacific for a long time. Unless you say the continents moved multiple times since the Flood, which isn't in the Bible.
We are assuming the fish are sufficiently different because they are genetically divergent from the ancestral population and are not in contact. This is not saying that they cannot come into contact in the future and introgress. This is not likely to happen in nature anytime soon though.
We are not comparing each fish to it's sister. The competitive advantage of one over the other is not important since they are in different oceans. Now you CAN compare their fitness to other species in the same ocean. The fitness of a particular species is very important for it's survival. When the Isthmus closed, we find fossil evidence of species and even genera that once occurred in the Caribbean but became extinct follwing the Closure. Obviously these species were unable to survive in the Caribbean (there were drastic circulation and temp. changes when this happened). This is also found in the Pacific. Google "Paranthias colonus" and "Paranthias furcifer", and the Porkfishes (Anisotremus virginicus/taeniatus). These species found both oceans to their liking and both have survived to this day. It is clear that they share a common ancestor yet they are different species. None came first, they had the same ancestor.
Your view on mutations is flawed. You don't need drastic mutations to cause speciation. If you separate a population into two, and especially if the split populations are small, you will have genetic drift in which random chance effects the genetic composition of each population. Most mutations will be neutral, but you may have a few inversions, deletions, transferrals during crossing over that modify the genome slightly. And the results, over the course of 3.5 millions years, the geminate species pairs have only slightly changed. This says something for the pace of evolution.
Finally, the cat to dog example is like comparing apples to oranges. They aren't even in the same family! There is plenty of evidence for evolution of species, even some for the origin of new genera. A food example of a modern-day intermediate bewtween two FAMILIES is the False Halfbeak (Oxyporhamphus micropterus). It has characteristics of flyingfish (large pectoral fins and no enlarged lower jaw) but has the body structure of a true halfbeak. In the marine environment you see plenty of transitional forms and they don't require that drastic a genetic change.
I have a lot of experience talking about this subject and I come on storngly sometimes, but I don't mean to (and I don't intend to, it never happens) insult anyone's belief. Debates consists of taking one side and defending it. I figured there would be some theistic evolutionists or at least progressive creationists who can find a compromise that fits both sides. There are a few (Gman) that are trying to have an open mind but the majority seem to be hardcore creationists (who are difficult to debate).