I'll try to avoid discussing speciation or any other Science based subject with you.
You go out and get yourself a GED and take some community college courses. Once you've graduated with a degree from a real university i'll talk with you.
So Science is you religion. Frustrated from the inability to prove your faith based beliefs you turn to the symbolism of your religion by invoking the almighty sacred word "Science".
Poor little man is stifled again.
99% of the worlds scientific population would disagree with you. In the speciation post there were clear examples of speciation taking place in recent times. Are you arguing that those examples aren't speciation?
It seems friend that you did not read my words very carefully since i said that speciation DOES occur but that this variation within kinds does not in any way demonstrate single celled organisms evolving into to all life we see today or any major changes such as reptiles to mammals, reptiles to birds or even hominid to man. Finches are still finches and butterflies are still butterflies, so be not fooled by the big leap, big picture implications which are falsely speculated and propagated.
The evidence is absolutely not there for the big picture drawings that we see and conjured drawings do not make it real. The actual evidence does not show a single tree of life as the common base for all life we see today, but instead it points overwhelmingly to many separate trees with variation within them (which is what creation model predicts). Cambrian explosion is one such example where 40 phyla appeared in the fossil record fully developed and with no transitional forms leading to any of them.
If i was an evolutionist, this would trouble me deeply since this evidence points overwhelmingly to creation. If the scientists were allowed to conclude design, then they would... but instead they are forced to go contrary to where the evidence points and force a materialistic conclusion which does not fit.
I read your words. You have your own personal definition of speciation.
Seemed to me a clear misunderstanding, your belief that i said speciation doesn't occur when i said that it does. If you had read my words and understood them, i don't see the evidence for it. I don't have my own definition of species, i am using yours (man's). If you believe otherwise, how do you say i am defining species?... and this can't work unless you quote something i wrote.
Those examples show you a species changing into something else a different species that can no longer breed with the original species.
And yet they remain the same biblical kind. Finches are another species of finch, butterflies another species of butterfly. This comes about from a reshuffling of the existing dna which is not gaining new information which would be required for the Theory of Evo (common descent of all living things from single celled organisms billions of years ago) to work. Instead the evidence shows many separate "trees", instead of one, each with lots of variation but within limits. You do understand that a finch becomming another variety (species) of finch (which fits well within creation model) is not the same as man evolving over billions of years from single celled organisms, right?.
lol what sun tsu said. also speciation isnt good for evolution because.......noahs ark....entire land dwelling animal gene pool on the planet at one place at one time +near infinite genetic drift+essentially zero predation+small population sizes=PERFECT INGREDIENTS lol for SPECIATION so.....i cant see how rock to fish to human delusion/hypothesis predicts speciation? if someone knows please say so
Wrong, speciation has never been demonstrated. That's why you turn to Christian bashing ,out of pure frustration of not being able to demonstrate your belief system. Seems the small mind only needs to hear the word scientific, as if it is some infallible god source. However Science is only as sound as the person behind its theories. Is man infallible,is man without vanity ,ego, is man not power hungry, corrupt,is man not ignorant of all the unknown mysteries of the universe. Hardly.
Radiometric dating is based on the assumption that the theory of evolution is true and so it is also based on the assumption of an extremely old world (currently 4.54 billion years old). This dating method is only as good as the accuracy its assumptions. 90% of the dating methods point to young earth of thousands, not billions of years (and the other 10% are based on old earth assumptions and calibrations based upon these assumptions and are thus arrived upon through circular reasoning). Have you ever actually checked this out?
You have to deny modern Science because it will destroy your belief in Jesus/God/Holy spirit, or whatever you refer to it as.
Even a moderately retarded person with absolutely no background in any science can take a good look at the planet and realize it's older than a million years.
Isn't it time to pull your head out of the sand and come up with a new theory?
You have to deny modern Science because it will destroy your belief in Jesus/God/Holy spirit, or whatever you refer to it as.
Modern science points both to young earth and to creation, i am sorry to burst your bubble :). But evolutionists force a materialistic explanation for the evidence even when creation best explains it (which it most assuredly does). When the evolutionists are not allowed to conclude creation/design, they are forced into an explanation which is a distant 2nd best.
Even a moderately retarded person with absolutely no background in any science can take a good look at the planet and realize it's older than a million years.
How do you mean? What as you see them are the tell tale signs of an "older than a million years" planet?
Isn't it time to pull your head out of the sand and come up with a new theory?
I keep thinking it's time for evolutionists to do this since the evidence to substantiate their theory hasn't been found in 150 years of frenetic searching. Variation within kinds happens (and much of it), everything else is pure speculation with lots of very convincing drawings.
I believe that man has been around for about 6000 years originally with a restart about 4400 years ago, yes... and i believe the idea that man has been here for 100,000 or 200,000 years would have resulted in a population explosion that is astronomically and exponentially (and impossibly) greater than what we see today as explained in my previous post. Instead of 9 zeroes as we see today with 7,000,000,000, it would have resulted in 200 of them.
The favored dating methods utilized by evolutionists are based on assumptions, one of these assumptions being the Theory of Evolution which requires a very old world. So "old world" is another of these assumptions. The vast majority of dating methods (about 90%) point to a young earth of thousands, not billions of years and even the 10% which point to old world are based on old world assumptions and calibrations.
Consider for a moment that the dates evolutionists have given everything are fantastically inaccurate as 90% of the dating methods point to and then read the following quote from your own evolutionist source as provided in your thread starting post:
"The end of the Permian was marked by perhaps the greatest mass extinction ever to occur. Some estimates suggest that up to 90% of the species then living became extinct."
Be honest and ask yourself if this sounds like something a catastrophic global flood could have caused? Since evolutionists prefer to ignore the many evidences various scientists have uncovered for a global flood as described in the bible which would have taken place about 4400 years ago, they have speculated various other possible causes for these mass extinctions including an asteroid impact as one and various alternative global disasters as others (but of course not a flood!).
Note also as an aside that "species" are not the same as biblical "kinds", a term used in the bible long before man began to make his own distinctions. "Kind" appears to most commonly be represented by genus though sometimes family and other times species (as with humans).
Konstantine said: "In each one of your religious minds there must be a certain amount of doubt that we populated the planet from adam and eve.
If this were true Jesus would be condoning incest."
Incest would not have been a problem with Adam and Eve. For man was not created with any genetic defect. He was not yet fallen. Man's fallen state became the reason why incest became taboo.
Men were yet genetically very strong for hundreds of years after the fall. Men were yet living for hundreds of years, for the genetic decline was not a rapid process. Over time when man's decline finally reached a certain level, then the command against incest was given. Man did not know about DNA.
God understood genetics while man did not. Man was not yet capable of understanding such scientific knowledge. So, God simply gave a command prohibiting what we call incest.The prohibition was to prevent mankind from entering into a spiraling rapid self destruct mode genetically.
Today we accept incest as a wrong. In the beginning it was not the case.
Thanks for the post. I thought about posting something similar, but I did not know how to put it into words. I did study this issue a long time ago so I have no sources - just my memories. I knew that incest did not exist until God gave the command. He created man in such a way that genetics was not an issue at first. He timed the genetic issue perfectly to the time when He gave the command. He created mankind so that at first brothers and sisters would marry and bear children with no genetic problems. He did not forbid brothers and sisters to marry each other at first and it was definitely not wrong to do so. This is how he planned it. It was not wrong until He said it was now going to be wrong. He is the potter. We are the clay. He can create this world and all that is in it anyway He chooses.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." (Genesis 1:1-2)
Man's tool of classification is simply an attachment of belief.
That is it is religion like the belief in evolution which is based on fiath in evidence presented.
Here is a quote from the University of Waikato you refered to.
"Plants and animals both owe their origins to endosymbiosis, a process where one cell ingests another, but for some reason then fails to digest it."
Note the term used...but for some reason. This means that all information derived in such context is based on faith in previous related work and yet their is mystery and uncertainty in the said theory.
The Article continues to state speculation as fact...this is not scientific, because we know for a fact that the information regarding evolution is theory and while there is evidence, the 600 million year timeline, etc. has not been verified by rigorous experimentaion, that would take 600 million years to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt.
In Short:
The information and theory are only as good as the words used to communicate them.
The fact that you had to placed your underhanded assumption of inbreeding into your premise says it all, Your argument is moot when it is integrated with a manufactured (straw man)insult.
Home
this may help you understand 
Re: Christianity is a faith based theory 
