Evolution thread.

In this thread we'll strictly talk about macro evolution and whether its valid. As a young earth creationist (YEC) I don't think it's valid.

 

You can have your own opinion but you can't have your own facts. You're wrong. So very wrong. The fact that you still don't accept the mountains of evidence informs me that there's no point even trying to convince you.

 

Why would you decide to create a thread for the sole purpose of telling everyone you are an ignorant person?

 

Why? If you’re starting with an established belief position that excludes the possibility of evolution as commonly understood, what would be the point of anyone bother discussing the subject with you?

 

Wouldn't it help your case to at least support it with credible data rather than belief? "I don't think it's valid" isn't even an argument. It's the premise your data should support, but you didn't provide any.

 

What mountain of evidence?

- - - Updated - - -

I created a thread to start a civil logical debate.

- - - Updated - - -

That's what we're here to discuss. And I think I have a common understanding of evolution. That's why I'm against the theory.

- - - Updated - - -

It's the start of the thread. I didnt think it was nessecary to go into proofs right off the bat. But to start off I don't think we've ever observe one family evolving into another.

 

You stated in your OP that you don’t think macro evolution is “valid” because you’re a YEC. You can’t accept evolutionary theory as long as you hold your beliefs about the age of the Earth. Also, terminology like “validity” and being “against” it suggests not approaching it from an open perspective and are really just after an argument. Good luck with that.

 

DNA and fossil evidence has disproved the young earth theory

unless you think the devil planted all the evidence I suppose - lol

 

The point of the thread is to debate macro evolution is true. Why not start with that and roll with it?

- - - Updated - - -

I'd like to see how does DNA and the fossil record disprove YEC.

 

Do you mean we've never witnessed the full transformation from one to its next evolutionary step, or that there's no evidence of it happening? There's lots of fossil record evidence and they continue to find further evidence. http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

 

Considering the enormous amount of Data at your fingertips that not only provide the proof of an ancient Earth but the evolution of species over vast time frames it is extremely unlikely you have interest ion accepting anything that will be provided...still, I have a very simple question for you to consider the implications of.

Do you believe there were French Poodles living around Wolf packs?

 

Both. We see micro evolution but not macro. BTW you can't use fossils as evidence because you can't prove it had different children.

http://www.creationwiki.org/Human_evolution

 

LOL...so dismiss scientific evidence to use what, then? Since evolution is so slow, there aren't exactly eye witnesses or video evidence. Transitional fossils are necessary evidence.

 

No I believe the DNA to create French poodles was in the wolf. But most dog breeds were bred by humans. Also getting a poodle from a wolf is a small step from getting a wolf from a rock.

- - - Updated - - -

So we don't see it happening today so that proves it happened slowly. Isn't that proof by lack of evidence?

 

No, it's proof by evidence that it happens slowly.

 

What proof you have that it happened slowly?

 

The ages of fossils of one species against the age of transitional fossils in that species.

 

I see....so humans bred the individual dog breed over LONG TIME FRAMES from the initial genome contained in Wolf DNA....interesting.

But, natural breeding does not do this?



Strange...I suppose WE are now God and extensive time is not required because of our enormous and miraculous abilities.

 

How do you know the age of the fossil?

http://www.icr.org/article/does-geologic-column-prove-evolution

 

Dog breeds formed in about 10000 years according to evolution while I say 6000-4000 years. Natural breeding would not breed chihuahuas or Great Danes because they can't survive in the wild.

 

Well, in terms of fossil records (tree ring data), we have an unbroken set of tree rings in wood that go back over 10,000 years. That's enough to disprove the 6000 year old YEC. The C-14 data has been calibrated according to that tree ring data, and it goes back at least 20,000 years.

Please define macro evolution and YEC before we go much further.

 

Please use a relevant website, not a propaganda site.

Don't quite understand the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) about "BTW you can't use fossils as evidence because you can't prove it had different children."

The fossil evidence is pretty clear, despite your ignorance about it. Please tell me how long you have studied biology post high school graduation.

- - - Updated - - -

In creatures that have short generation times, we see evolution all the time. Please tell me why we wouldn't see the same results in creatures with long generation times?

- - - Updated - - -

Chihuahuas can survive in the wild:

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Thousands-of-stray-Chihuahuas-roam-Bay-Area-5768179.php

 

There's a lot of variables when doing tree ring dating. A tree on one side of the mountain can have different growth rates than the other side.
http://creation.mobi/tree-ring-dating-dendrochronology

To define YEC is young earth creationist. Which means I believe the earth is 10000 years old or less.

To define macro evolution is one family evolving into another.

 

Instead of knocking it off as a propaganda site prove that its wrong.

Take a t. Rex for example. All we know about it is it died and its physical features. Can you prove that the family of t. Rex evolved into something else? If so how?

Then show me how is it clear.

- - - Updated - - -


[QUOTE
In creatures that have short generation times, we see evolution all the time. Please tell me why we wouldn't see the same results in creatures with long generation times?
[/QUOTE]

Because there are limits to the gene pool.


- - - Updated - - -

That may be true (link didnt work) but you should get what I'm saying. Natural selection would not have bred a chihuahua because it can't defend itself from meat eaters.

 

In desert environments, the side of the mountain isn't that significant. They start this based on known historical tree rings, and pretty much in desert areas, it's regional, not local as you seem to be implying. Also, please stop insulting me by posting those lies by the creationist side. Find a valid website. I wouldn't insult you by using talk.origins, etc.

Why 10,000 years old? Do you not trust the Bible, which scholars agree says that the earth began at 4004 BC?

A more precise definition please. Are you referring to a taxonomic family?