The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

this is very strong scientific (i.e. repeatably observable) EVIDENCE that they have recently and rapidly speciated from a common Kind!!!:D

That isn't what you were asked.

Show me ONE mammal species that has evolved into another mammal species. Because according to you this should have happened hundreds of thousands of times over the last 6,000 years.

J C wrote: »

There are many aquatic organisms that are physiognomically identical and that are present in BOTH freshwater and saltwater varieties

And there are far more that aren't.

So what is your point?

If 1 out of 10 fish can survive in both fresh and salt water that doesn't explain how the other 9 managed it :rolleyes:

5uspect

J C wrote: »

.....by swimming around in it I guess!!![/I]

I was being ironic.......do Evolutionists not recognise irony????:)

No but I can smell something...

pH

Wicknight wrote: »

Show me ONE mammal species that has evolved into another mammal species. Because according to you this should have happened hundreds of thousands of times over the last 6,000 years.

J C is evasive on this, but I think that your figure of 6,000 years is an overestimate. J C positions the flood at 2300 BCE giving at most 4,300 years for these species to have evolved from the 'saved kind' on the ark.

However we can establish the existence of say lions much further back - to the Romans at least - so this constrains the available evolutionary time even further, so a generous estimate would be that all the 'evolution' happened in less than 2,000 years, and I'm fairly sure for it could be pinned back even more.

wolfsbane

pH wrote: »

Interesting! The flood in 2304 BC ... and tigers, lions, pumas, jaguars all formed species since. Any rough idea how long after the flood did it take these species to form? Are we talking 1 year? 10 years? 100 years? 1,000 years?

I don't know. Historical reports describing such animals would be one way of finding out - but dating the reports themselves might be an issue. Also, finding their remains in a datable site. I would guess (not being a specialist) that the rate of speciation would at least be as great in the millenium following the Flood as it was in the one before it. Given the great number of species in the fossil record (most of which I assume would have come from the Flood) the 1700 years of Earth's existence before the Flood was prolific in speciation. So, I hassard a guess at several hundred years for a substantial speciation to have developed.

wolfsbane

pH wrote: »

J C is evasive on this, but I think that your figure of 6,000 years is an overestimate. J C positions the flood at 2300 BCE giving at most 4,300 years for these species to have evolved from the 'saved kind' on the ark.

However we can establish the existence of say lions much further back - to the Romans at least - so this constrains the available evolutionary time even further, so a generous estimate would be that all the 'evolution' happened in less than 2,000 years, and I'm fairly sure for it could be pinned back even more.

Yes, Wicknight's estimate is indeed wrong. He seems to pay little attention to the details of what one says, more content to build and knock down his own strawmen. Maybe he is just careless, or maybe it is deliberate - if so he would make a fine politician.:D

Glad that you are here to set the record straight.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

So, I hassard a guess at several hundred years for a substantial speciation to have developed.

If it takes several hundred years for speciation to take place you would not have 1% of the number of modern species you have at the moment.

We are talking decades, not centuries. And that is clearly impossible.

The "I don't know" is the most accurate thing in your post :rolleyes:

J C

SubjectSean wrote: »

"A recent study exposes the difficulties evolutionary biologists are faced with, when they attempt to account for the emergence of the human brain by natural processes. They studied 214 genes involved in human brain development and established, from an evolutionary perspective, that these genes must have undergone hyper-fast evolution to produce the large human brain with its advanced cognitive capacities. In the words of one investigator: " To accomplish so much in so little evolutionary time…requires a selective process that is perhaps categorically different from the typical processes of acquiring new biological traits. This type of rapid and extensive genetic turn over makes little sense from an evolutionary perspective, given the deleterious effects of most mutations and the extensive complexity and integration of the biological systems that make up the human brain. If anything, this type of rapid evolution should be catastrophic”.

...and could I suggest that ALL random changes to complex interactive information (such as is found in living organisms) has the same potential to be catastrophic!!!!
.....and that is the reason why Evolutionists are rationally (and correctly) fearful of undergoing mutagenesis......even though they emotionally (and erroneously) embrace mutagenesis as the mechanism that supposedly brought them into existence!!!:eek::D

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, Wicknight's estimate is indeed wrong. He seems to pay little attention to the details of what one says, more content to build and knock down his own strawmen. Maybe he is just careless, or maybe it is deliberate - if so he would make a fine politician.:D

Glad that you are here to set the record straight.

Fine, if you want to make your theories even more impossible, I'm not going to stop you

J C

pH wrote: »

This is something that interests me, but probably not for this thread. Take two examples from Ireland recently - grey vs red squirrels and the zebra mussel invasion - both seem to indicate that evolution lags well behind environmental change in that there are plenty of examples where an introduced species has outperformed all indigenous ones - which you would imagine that evolution should have fine tuned to the environment. As I said probably not for this tread though.

Another serious problem for Materialistic Evolutionists who believe that living creatures are the result of an all-powerful selection mechanism, which directs chance to match organisms to their environment and which has becomes a sort of “God” … which is unquestioningly 'worshipped' by these Evolutionists.:D:)

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

Materialistic Evolutionists who believe that living creatures are the result of an all-powerful selection, directing chance to match organisms to their environment

Groan .. you believe that happens as well JC .. or at least you were claiming to a few minutes ago. But I suppose I shouldn't surprised if you have changed positions once again.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Show me ONE mammal species that has evolved into another mammal species. Because according to you this should have happened hundreds of thousands of times over the last 6,000 years.

African and Asian Elephants....... Sumatran, Indian, Black and White Rhinoscerous.......and, as I have already said

Dogs, Wolves, Dingoes, Jackals, Foxes........or Lions, Tigers, Leopards.......or Horses, Zebra, Donkeys.......or the various different species of Domestic and Feral Cattle.....such as Bison, Bos Indicus and Bos Taurus!!!

.....and the 'Bird World' is also full of examples of recent speciation......Pheasants and Domestic Fowl.......Mallard and Domestic Duck.....various Pidgeon and Geese species, Darwins Finches and other Finches.....Swallows and Sand Martins.....the list is virtually endless!!!!:D

Wicknight wrote: »

If 1 out of 10 fish can survive in both fresh and salt water that doesn't explain how the other 9 managed it :rolleyes:

The other 9 are the result of speciation by isolation and/or population genetic and pheotypic 'drift' by natural selection!!!:D

J C

Originally Posted by J C
Materialistic Evolutionists who believe that living creatures are the result of an all-powerful selection, directing chance to match organisms to their environment

Wicknight wrote: »

Groan .. you believe that happens as well JC .. or at least you were claiming to a few minutes ago. But I suppose I shouldn't surprised if you have changed positions once again.

I believe that NS and speciation are capable of making minor 'tweaks' within Kinds (like producing separate African and Asian Elephant species from a common ancestor Elephant Kind).....but they are not capable of turning Pond Slime into Man......or even Elephants into Rhinos!!!:D

Mutations are only hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but with no final evolutionary effect.
Mutations are not complementary, nor are they cumulative.......so they don’t work together, and they don’t add up to anything. They modify what pre-exists...... so you can get no more from mutations than variation within kinds. :)

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

Originally Posted by Wicknight
So me evidence of one mammal species where this has taken place.

Originally Posted by J C
Dogs, Wolves, Dingoes, Jackals, Foxes........or Lions, Tigers, Leopards.......or Horses, Zebra, Donkeys.......or the various different species of Domestic and Feral Cattle.....such as Bison, Bos Indicus and Bos Taurus!!![

They are creatures with similar physiognomies and are able to cross-breed.....but they are separate species because they generally don't produce fertile offspring.......this is very strong scientific (i.e. repeatably observable) EVIDENCE that they have recently and rapidly speciated from a common Kind!!!:D

You're aware that there's something of a distinction between "repeatedly observable" and "scientific", but why would we quibble at this point?

There's no evidence of speciation as rapid as required by Creationism.

J C wrote: »

There are many aquatic organisms that are physiognomically identical and that are present in BOTH freshwater and saltwater varieties.....these include oysters, prawns, lobster, crayfish......and there are even freshwater and seawater Dolphins ......which is very strong scientific (i.e. repeatably observable) EVIDENCE that they have ALL recently and rapidly speciated from a common Kind!!!:D

......and to put my argument beyond ALL doubt there are even fish that move freely between freshwater and seawater as part of their lifecycles......and these include Salmon, Trout and Eels!!!!!:D:)

Actually, you've pretty much covered them there.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

African and Asian Elephants....... Sumatran, Indian, Black and White Rhinoscerous.......and, as I have already said

Dogs, Wolves, Dingoes, Jackals, Foxes........or Lions, Tigers, Leopards.......or Horses, Zebra, Donkeys.......or the various different species of Domestic and Feral Cattle.....such as Bison, Bos Indicus and Bos Taurus!!!

You are not answering the question I'm asking JC.

African elephants have not evolved into Asian elephants.

Show me ONE mammal species that has evolved into another.

J C

Originally Posted by J C
These records are unreliable and probably were reconstructed after the Flood......to 'puff up' the importance of the incumbent Pharaoh of the time.......and the reason that the ancient 'Egyptians' themselves didn't record the Flood was because they were DROWNED by it!!!

Son Goku wrote: »

In fact it still doesn't make sense. I mean even if there was puffing up done, why wouldn't they mention the flood. As in "Oh yeah, there was massive flood that covered the whole Earth a few years back".

IF the incumbent Pharoah wanted to (erroneously) claim descent from the original builders of the Pyramids (in order to bolster his 'god like' status amongst his people) he could conceivably approve the construction of a 'potted history' showing such descent.......and might even have it inscribed/painted on the walls of the monuments themselves to further support the hoax!!!!:D

Any reference to the Flood would unravel the whole hoax.....and show the Pharoah to be descended from Noah instead......so it isn't surprising that there wasn't any referece to the Flood in the Egyptian Chronologies!!!!

pH

Wicknight wrote: »

You are not answering the question I'm asking JC.

African elephants have not evolved into Asian elephants.

Show me ONE mammal species that has evolved into another.

As far as I understand it, J C is saying that African Elephants and Asian elephants have evolved (via natural selection) from a common ancestor (that was on the ark).

Wolfsbane, his fellow creation scientist is saying that this evolution happened in the course of "hundreds of years".

I say keep giving them rope.

Zombrex

pH wrote: »

As far as I understand it, J C is saying that African Elephants and Asian elephants have evolved (via natural selection) from a common ancestor (that was on the ark).

I appreciate that, but it isn't what I'm asking.

If macro-evolution happens in mammals as quickly as JC and Wolfsbane claim it does it should be possible for humans to record this.

So JC, where are these species. Show me a mammal species that evolved into a different one. Considering that this should happen ever few decades, this should be easy for you.

J C

SubjectSean wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance but I don't understand why this would be the case and it looks a little spooky to me. Surely environment and the rate of mutation would be fairly constant? I'd rather not go all supernatural on this one so if anybody can explain I'd be greatful.

......but when Materialistic explainations (for the presence of life) fail the most basic tests of logic, observation and mathematics......then supernatural explanations do come into the equation......as you (and many other Evolutionists) are starting to discover!!!

....and when ALL observed evidence supports a supernatural explantion then that is where science SHOULD go ....... but I can see the obvious 'faith difficulties' for committed a priori atheists in such a scenario!!!!:D

.......but there you go.......God exists and created all life......so I guess everyone will have to just get used to it!!!!:eek::D:)

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

....and when ALL observed evidence supports a supernatural explantion then that is where science SHOULD go

By definition observed evidence cannot support a supernatural explanation. If it did it wouldn't be supernatural :rolleyes:

Are you going to answer my question now?

Zombrex

Interesting video demonstrating the evidence for a common ancestors of humans and great apes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXdQRvSdLAs

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

I appreciate that, but it isn't what I'm asking.

If macro-evolution happens in mammals as quickly as JC and Wolfsbane claim it does it should be possible for humans to record this.

So JC, where are these species. Show me a mammal species that evolved into a different one. Considering that this should happen ever few decades, this should be easy for you.

Selective breeding of dogs, and indeed of other domestic animals has been observed and there are now such phenotypic divergence between a dog like a small terrier and an Irish Wolfhound that they are incapable of cross breeding 'in the wild'.....and so are effectively separate species.

Similarly small Shetland Ponies are effectively incapable of cross breeding with Draught Horses......and these are therefore effectively separate species.

Equally, Asian cattle breeds (Bos Indicus) are now so different from European breeds (Bos Taurus) that they are accepted as separate species.

I would also point out that, just like genetic diversity is dwinding under selective pressures and extinctions, the speciation potential (which is itself a function of genetic diversity) also seems to be in decline.......so that we don't expect to now see anything approaching the rates of speciation which occurred in the past and especially in the years from Creation until shortly after the Flood!!!:D:)

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

By definition observed evidence cannot support a supernatural explanation. If it did it wouldn't be supernatural :rolleyes:

Of course we can observe supernatural evidence in this (natural) world......for example anybody present at the resurrection of Lazarus by Jesus would have observed a supernatural phenomenon.......equally, anybody present at the parting of the waters of the Red Sea by Moses would equally have observed a supernatural event!!!:D

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

Selective breeding of dogs, and indeed of other domestic animals has been observed and there are now such phenotypic divergence between a dog like a small terrier and an Irish Wolfhound that they are incapable of cross breeding 'in the wild'.....and so are effectively separate species.

That is a lie. Different breeds of dogs are not separate species and a terrier and wolfhound can be breed.

But again you are not answering the question I am asking you (even incorrectly).

Show me a mammal species that has evolved into a different mammal species.

Come on JC, this should be happening all the time. Why is this so hard for you?

J C wrote: »

Similarly small Shetland Ponies are effectively incapable of cross breeding with Draught Horses......and these are therefore effectively separate species.

That is another lie, Shetland Ponies are not a different species to horses.

Why is this such a hard question for you to answer.

There should be literally thousands upon thousands of transitional species from the original species on the Ark and modern day mammals. Some of them must he been observed by humans.

You seem not to be able to name even one?

Why is that?

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

Of course we can observe supernatural evidence in this (natural) world......for example anybody present at the resurrection of Lazarus by Jesus would have observed a supernatural phenomenon.......equally, anybody present at the parting of the waters of the Red Sea by Moses would equally have observed a supernatural event!!!:D

Do you understand what "supernatural" actually means?

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

"Every religion is right about one thing. And that is that all the others are completely wrong" - Prof. Ronald de Sousa

Professor de Sousa is correct.....because ALL religions are man-made......and therefore ultimately fallible.......but luckily, the Christian Faith isn't a religion.......it is instead an infallible saving faith in Jesus Christ!!!:cool::)

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

Professor de Sousa is correct.....because ALL religions are man-made......and therefore ultimately fallible.......but luckily, the Christian Faith isn't a religion.......it is instead an infallible saving faith in Jesus Christ!!!:cool::)

That is awful sweet JC, but how about you get back to answering my questions on Creationist ideas of rapid macro-evolution (assuming you can, which is looking doubtful).

Oh, and buy the way. Where are the transitional fossils?

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote: »

That is awful sweet JC, but how about you get back to answering my questions on Creationist ideas of rapid macro-evolution (assuming you can, which is looking doubtful).

Oh, and buy the way. Where are the transitional fossils?

Scattered along the migration routes from Ararat, as we have previously established.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

That is a lie. Different breeds of dogs are not separate species and a terrier and wolfhound can be breed.

......so can a Horse and a Zebra......and with considerably less (physical) difficulty!!!!:D

The mind boggles at the vision of a Wolfhound 'getting down on it' with a terrier bitch.......and the thoughts of a terrier dog trying to climb up the leg of a Wolfhound bitch is certainly the triumph of hope over experience!!!:D

Wicknight wrote: »

Come on JC, this should be happening all the time. Why is this so hard for you?............
........There should be literally thousands upon thousands of transitional species from the original species on the Ark and modern day mammals. Some of them must he been observed by humans.

I have already pointed out that, just like genetic diversity is dwinding under selective pressures and extinctions, the speciation potential (which is itself a function of genetic diversity) also seems to be in decline.......so that we don't expect to now see anything approaching the rates of speciation which occurred in the past and especially in the years from Creation until shortly after the Flood!!!

Wicknight wrote: »

That is another lie, Shetland Ponies are not a different species to horses.

Have you EVER tried to cross a Draught Mare with a Shetland Stallion???

He might have high hopes .......but he simply would be unable to rise to the occasion!!!:D

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you understand what "supernatural" actually means?

I do.......but I suspect that you, as a Materialist, have an a priori inability to accept the reality of the supernatural.......or rapid speciation, either!!!!:):D

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

......so can a Horse and a Zebra......and with considerably less (physical) difficulty!!!!:D

And?

Can you answer the question or not?

J C wrote: »

I have already pointed out that, just like gentic diversity is dwinding under selective pressures and extinctions, the speciation potential (which is itself a function of genetic diversity) also seems to be in decline.......so that we don't expect to now see anything approaching the rates of speciation which occurred in the past and especially in the years from Creation until shortly after the Flood!!!

And?

Show me a mammal species that has macro-evolved into another mammal species.

J C wrote: »

He might have high hopes .......but he simply would be unable to rise to the occasion!!!:D

And, what? That makes them a different species? What are you talking about?

Its a pretty simple request JC, show me mammal macro-evolution within the time frame of Biblical Creationism.

There should be hundreds of thousands of examples. You just need to give me one