Posted on 11/04/2009 8:25:01 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
So a three-toed cat sized forest dwelling animal turning into my 16 hand 1200 lb 1 hoof quarter does not represent a change (read evolution) in your mind?
Man has provided for the adaptation of all kinds of animals (see dogs, from Chihuahua to the Mastiff, from wild stock. ALL are still dogs/canines, NONE are now cats.) This is adaptation, not evolution. Show me a horse turning to a whale. A fish changing to a bird. Or perhaps even the liberal panacea of an ape changing to Man. No such population of ‘transitory’ animals existed, as evidenced by lack of fossil evidence.
Again, I must say that you are not properly applying the term evolution. The term adaptation is a synonym of evolution. By your statements you are professing a belief in evolution. You’re trying to say since there are no fish-lizards or monkey-men then evolution doesn’t exist. Your statement in light of proper use of the definitions is absurd.
Adaptation says that an existing life form can adapt, without changing WHAT IT IS. A fish is not going to adapt its way into a praying mantis. However, a fish can adapt to new er environment (Provided the change is not too extreme for the animal) and IT REMAINS A FISH.
Where did the existing life forms come from to do this adaptation? See Genesis.
your attempt to equate adaptation with evolution is not honest.
You really have no idea what is in “Origin of Species” do you?
I would suggest to you that you read the original treatise before you continue. Your examples are ludicrous only because you don’t understand the basis. I would also suggest you look up adaptive traits - you’ll find it included in the definition of evolution.
Here. I will link it for you.
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/index.html
and
Here.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1514793/
Honestly, I do not NEED to know what Darwin wrote. Darwin is but a small protion of the entire issue.
Did life start spontaneously, a mixture of dead organics that miraculously combined in a very specific way that enabled it to ‘live’.
Following that, did that new life, over millenia change from single cell status to the life we see today.
I say NO to this. I say the life forms wew see today (as well as those that are since extinct) were called into being in an act of creation.
Having said that, again, in regards to the larger issue, adaptation is NOT evolution. Mankind did not ‘evolve’ from some small primitive animal that ‘might have’ lived millions of years ago.
To echo your question, You really have no idea what is in Genesis and WHY it is so important to liberals and such that it be ‘proven’ untrue, do you?
Quite the opposite. I’m very familiar with both works. It’s the ‘head in the sand’ attitude you’ve taken that makes this discussion so cathartic. Your don’t “need to know what Darwin wrote” statement is very telling about the level of discussion that you’re capable of. If you were going to write a book critique about Tom Sawyer would you also expect full credit for saying that since Samuel Clements used a pen name (a sure sign of a fraud) you can just guess at what’s in the book and not have to read it.
You’re suffering from willful ignorance. The only cure for which is to read what you are in opposition to so you can “intelligently design” your response.
While you may have a point on the surface, I am also opposed to socialism/communism. I have not read the works of Marx nor Mao, nor do I really intend to, I know, based on world experience their teachings are false and destructive.
It is not willful ignorance on my part to decline to read that which is false. I willfully choose to believe what is written in the Bible.
There is an ever increasing load of material that is beginning to refute the THEORY of Evolution. If you choose to continue to subscribe to the idea that life today is the result of millions, or billions of years of evolution, that is your call. You do yourself no favors.
I for one choose the bible as my truth. And Genesis, being the first book, the beginning of all, is under attack by those that would discredit the whole. As is the same within Conservatism, incremental compromise yields only disastrous results.
There is no compromise for this. Genesis is actually very specific. And is true.
While I agree with your defense of our values I hope that you would at least familiarize yourself with the material so that you can make solid arguments in support of your position. It will save you from making statements that would otherwise invalidate your very real concerns.
All the best.
Values aside, Adaptation is not Evolution. Apples and Oranges so to speak. I do know that Darwin wrote of how animals changed based on environmental pressures.
Case in point was a population of Finches whose beaks changed based on weather causing changes in seed characteristics.
Yet in the final analysis, the Finches were still Finches, not new animal forms.
Evolutionists have, at the core of their argument, the desire to refute Genesis by linking the ‘evolution’ of humans from apes. Were that to be true, the rest of the Bible just becomes a book of morality.
I stand by the requirement to PROVE evolution beyond a Theory. Until then, that is all it is. At least I can see the Theory of Gravity by dropping an apple. I’ve not seen nary a sliver of proof of animals changing beyond the minor adaptation. Surely there would be proof of some transitional form during the diversification that is theorized.
“I for one choose the bible as my truth. “
I respect your conclusion in opposition to evolution on the basis of faith. However, I would expect that you not try to rationalize your faith-derived belief by insisting that it is supported by scientific observation. It is not.
My position is NOT supported by scientific observation. We are called to walk by Faith, not by sight.
By the same token, it is NOT refuted by scientific observation and, that is telling. Why can not a position that some refer to as ‘fantasy’, ‘mystical beliefs’, and such, not be disproven by scientific observation?
It should be relatively easy, given todays technology, the incredible number of fossils found, to be able to show at least a lineage of evolutionary forms. It can not be done.
As I have posted elsewhere, I have great respect for those who arrive at this conclusion via faith. I, a Christian, do not share your view. Evolution is, in fact supported by scientific observation.
And it is perfectly compatible with Christianity.
OK then, your turn, provide the proof. Point out a fossil that shows this. I do not believe that this is possible as it is not the FACT of evolution, just the Theory.
But go ahead, prove it.
In other words, we should turn to Godless atheists to determine the answers to questions about faith and science, even though they are wrong about everything.
How can any one fossil prove the point? Scientists examine many fossils in concert with various dating methods. The evidence is there. You’re free to deny it, of course.
Faith is faith, and science is science.
OTOH Henry Madison Morris (who died only THIS century) believed the natural state of the descendents of Ham was as hewers of wood and drawers of water.
And that has nothing to do with Huxley. If you want to post a thread about Luther, research him and do it. Democrats typically try to deflect the heat on their boys with argumants like that. It is both a cowardly and weak form of argumentation that adds no knowkedge to the discussion, only a mis-placed accusation
Evolutionary biology is the truth observed in nature. How some people may misinterpret it, doesn't make it any less true.
So says your religion.
The title of the thread is: Darwin’s bulldog—Thomas H. Huxley (ironically, he had no patience for Christian evolutionists). He's very dead but the so is Karl Marx. Both individuals' philosophies survive to this day.
2. It was posted by someone who really wanted to argue that you can’t believe in Evolution while remaining Christian, since hard core evolutionists who hate Christianity generally do not post at Free Republic.
People who believe Jesus Christ, believe in Jesus Christ, and follow Jesus Christ are Christians. People who believe Evolution do not believe Jesus Christ. If one does not believe Jesus Christ one can neither believe in Jesus Christ nor can they be true follower of Jesus Christ. Therefore if one does not believe Jesus Christ, one is not a Christian. Choose who you believe. Choose wisely.
Hard core evolutionists who hate Christianity try to post at FR but generally do not survive at Free Republic.
If I happen to believe that light arriving at earth-based telescopes from some supernovae originated millions or billions of years ago, am I also considered by you to "not believe in Jesus Christ"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.