What if evolution was part of creationism?

[THE LIGHT]

Question: Why are the religious extremists so against evolutionary science?

Note: Not talking about the non-extremist religious people.

i.e. you are extremist if you don't agree with evolution.

Call me extreme. I believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God.

Beyond that it depends. If you mean micro evolution I'm all for it.

If you mean macro evolution it ain't in the Bible and it ain't been proven. pssst... its a fairy tale. Why should I believe a fairy tale. I don't believe in kissing frogs and turning them into princes.

Those who believe in macro and cosmic evolution are the only possible proof for macro and cosmic evolution.

First, the bible is a fairy tale.

Secondly, there are lots of things (billions of things) that exist which are not "mentioned in the bible" ... so do none of those exist? Like computers? Cars? Gravity? Saturn? The galaxy?

Does the Bible say that computers don't exist?

Since when has the Bible become a book on what exists and doesn't exist? There would be no benefit for the Bible to say whether or not paperclips exist or not.

However, many of the things that you mentioned are in the Bible:

· One galaxy in particular is mentioned and that is Orion in the book of Job (in case you didn't know that isn't the classifieds section of the Bible either Just a joke).
· Stars individually are also mentioned in the Bible as being innumerable long before we had a telescope to tell us that.
· Cars may not be directly mentioned but Tanks and missiles are referred to in Joel and Nahum.
· Yes, Saturn (Kaiwan) is mentioned in the Bible. Just not by the name we call it today.
· Gravity in Colossians 1:17 and Hebrews 1:3 is mentioned in a sense when he says that by Him all things all things are held together.
· The hydrologic cycle is mentioned in the Bible.
· The intricacy of snow flakes was mentioned by God to Job loooong before the microscope was invented to confirm this truth.

I could go on and on as this list is by no means exhaustive, but the point of the Bible is not to be the Encyclopedia Britanica of Scientific Terms. Yes many are mentioned but that is only a hint by God saying wake up ya'll I'm here.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
-Romans 1:20

To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork.
-Psalms 19:1


God encourages us to scientifically explore his creation because as we examine we will find the work of his hand, but to think that we are in any way smarter than our creator is just plain stupid.

The fact of the matter is God doesn't need your approval for the Bible to be correct. It is true in spite of your opinion not because of it.

So yes, those who believe in the Bible as the inerrant word of the living God ARE extremists. They extreme right and those who fail to see macro, social and cosmic evolution for what they are - a lie - are extreme wrong.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Beyond that it depends. If you mean micro evolution I'm all for it.

There's no such thing as micro or macro evolution. There's just evolution. Those were terms made up by religious fanatics because bacterial evolution cannot be denied, and something had to be done to ensure the bible wasn't contradicted.

If you disagree, please elaborate on the difference aside from timescale.

As for your fairy tale: why do you think the theory of evolution was developed? Anyone? Why did scientists spend lifetimes gathering data, refuting one another, and coming up with the most logical explanation for all the genetics, archaeology, anatomy, and physiology found? What's the motive here? And why is it that the most highly educated people in the country across the board agree that the evidence shows no doubt that evolution is true, while the most uneducated people in the country, across the board, are the most likely to think it's made up?

Have they found the missing link yet that shows a progression of this change?

Hicks tend to continually refer to missing links. I've asked several of you which link is missing, and never receive an answer.

Where would you like to start?

For your parting gift, we offer a free fishapod and archaeopteryx:

The Bible said, from that point on, man began ''tilling the soil'' for their food...and low and behold, science says...through archaeology and paleontology etc....shows the progression of 'man' did precisely that...went from hunting and gathering of berries etc to TILLING the soil...agriculture reliant societies.

Like water rising up from under the earth in a mist that became rain...covering the earth with oceans, then our land rising up... how did the writers know to write this 5000 years ago?

there are so many things like this, that i find amazing and beyond a coincidence in my logic and deserve consideration....and contemplation.

so you're saying, because ancient civilizations understood how rain worked, and how growing stuff worked, that it must be inspired by a deity?

Let's look at Harry Potter. Good book. There's so much that's true in it, like how this city called London is actually a real city, and how these things called castles which are described in the book really exist. And if you can't prove to me that the existence of dragons has been disproven, then I can only assume that part is also based on reality.

 

[Care4all]

Beyond that it depends. If you mean micro evolution I'm all for it.

There's no such thing as micro or macro evolution. There's just evolution. Those were terms made up by religious fanatics because bacterial evolution cannot be denied, and something had to be done to ensure the bible wasn't contradicted.

If you disagree, please elaborate on the difference aside from timescale.

As for your fairy tale: why do you think the theory of evolution was developed? Anyone? Why did scientists spend lifetimes gathering data, refuting one another, and coming up with the most logical explanation for all the genetics, archaeology, anatomy, and physiology found? What's the motive here? And why is it that the most highly educated people in the country across the board agree that the evidence shows no doubt that evolution is true, while the most uneducated people in the country, across the board, are the most likely to think it's made up?

Have they found the missing link yet that shows a progression of this change?

Hicks tend to continually refer to missing links. I've asked several of you which link is missing, and never receive an answer.

Where would you like to start?

For your parting gift, we offer a free fishapod and archaeopteryx:

The Bible said, from that point on, man began ''tilling the soil'' for their food...and low and behold, science says...through archaeology and paleontology etc....shows the progression of 'man' did precisely that...went from hunting and gathering of berries etc to TILLING the soil...agriculture reliant societies.

Like water rising up from under the earth in a mist that became rain...covering the earth with oceans, then our land rising up... how did the writers know to write this 5000 years ago?

there are so many things like this, that i find amazing and beyond a coincidence in my logic and deserve consideration....and contemplation.

so you're saying, because ancient civilizations understood how rain worked, and how growing stuff worked, that it must be inspired by a deity?

Let's look at Harry Potter. Good book. There's so much that's true in it, like how this city called London is actually a real city, and how these things called castles which are described in the book really exist. And if you can't prove to me that the existence of dragons has been disproven, then I can only assume that part is also based on reality.

STH,

No need to be a sarcastic Smart t Hick and just because YOU do not have the capability of connecting the two, does not mean they are not connected or could not be connected...open your mind, my dear....open your mind.

I did NOT say they understood rain....5000 years ago....I said the Bible stated that the earth was once covered with water, and that from UNDER THE GROUND steam came up which put a mist over the earth that eventually separated the water on the ground from the water coming down from the sky, rain....and that the land rose up out of these waters.

all in Genesis and all stuff Scientists TODAY are saying what happened in the Earths beginnings.

YOU have already MADE UP YOUR MIND that none of what is spoken of in the Bible can be true or relate to what Science is saying today.... I am NOT as closed minded as you...that's all.

And I happen to believe in Evolution, not only because this is what Science is saying or proving, but because the Bible as well, SUPPORTS EVOLUTION....an evolution....of things.

There would not have been stages, a day 1, day2, day 3, day4 etc, if there were not an EVOLUTION of things...

ALL would have been created in Stage 1 (day 1)....but this is CLEARLY not the case.

These people writing these books knew something they should not have known at the time...maybe it was time travelers telling them such, maybe there were seers among them that could see the future and the past, or maybe it is what some of us consider God.

How could these people possible KNOW that life in the oceans...fish were first, then birds and then animals then MAN....

HOW would they know this evolution 5000 years ago?

These things are a mystery....

Care

 

[jodylee]

The belife in GOD is a product of evolution. Tribes with religious tendencies were behaved as a solid unit (strong comunity) and were not afriad of death, were more sussesfull and conqured the less religious.
Who would you belive, the fifth, sixth,seventh, one thousandth hand accounts of the bible re writen in different languages miss-interpreted, and edited for politcail gain over centuries. Or the work of modern day scientist with technology at their disposal and freedom of thought, without fear of persecusion/death from religous rulers.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

No need to be a sarcastic Smart t Hick and just because YOU do not have the capability of connecting the two, does not mean they are not connected or could not be connected...open your mind, my dear....open your mind.

What are you even talking about here?

YOU have already MADE UP YOUR MIND that none of what is spoken of in the Bible can be true or relate to what Science is saying today.... I am NOT as closed minded as you...that's all.

False. My mind is open to factual evidence presented to me. Your mind is trying to fit what you see into what you want to believe. This produces you only pointing to the observations which coincide with the bible, and ignoring everything that doesn't. Guess which one of us is more biased.

These people writing these books knew something they should not have known at the time...maybe it was time travelers telling them such, maybe there were seers among them that could see the future and the past, or maybe it is what some of us consider God.

Or maybe vague references that can be manipulated in such a way as to coerce interpretation into actual evidence means you are gullible.

How could these people possible KNOW that life in the oceans...fish were first, then birds and then animals then MAN....

HOW would they know this evolution 5000 years ago?

For the exact same reason a 7 year old child can figure it out today. Humans are very advanced. Land animals are less advanced than humans. Things in the sea are generally ancient dumb creatures. It doesn't really take the word of God to figure out a logical progression here (although perhaps it does for some people).

 

[JD_2B]

has it been explained yet, how modern humans came to have a much larger brain, compared to previous humans? Have they found the missing link yet that shows a progression of this change?

Do you think eating an apple from the tree of the knowledge....is what changed us? I mean, isn't it possible that this Book is making reference to Modern Man being different from human-ids before us, who were not so large brained or knowledgeable?

Laughable to some....but to me, it's a sign to look further than what I want to hold my 'logical thinking' mind to.

Then the scripture about adam and eve living off land naturally, to then being sent out of this self supplying Eden....we know we began as humans in one place and then spread out....according to the Bible and DNA is showing we all had one ancestor...we did not begin in different places which science once thought, science has now disproved their original hypothesis and shown through Dna mapping that it is as the Bible stated...we had one proverbial Adam and Eve.

Some may laugh at this as well, but I asked myself....HOW did the writers of these Books know this 5000 years ago, when they wrote it? It's worth pursuing...

The Bible said, from that point on, man began ''tilling the soil'' for their food...and low and behold, science says...through archaeology and paleontology etc....shows the progression of 'man' did precisely that...went from hunting and gathering of berries etc to TILLING the soil...agriculture reliant societies.

There are soooo soooo many things in the Bible about our history, our progression that i had discarded earlier because I was stuck on the word DAY, and couldn't get past that silly word DAY...on the FIRST DAY stopped me in my logical tracks when reading Genesis...but then, too many other things that were said in short story form in the Bible that I originally was skeptical about, started to be proven true....yes true...most of the sequence of events were true....the progression of most of these events were true.

Like life beginning in our oceans...plants before creatures, fish before birds, animals before man....all of this progression writen in the Bible....we did NOT KNOW THIS was the progression of how the life on earth and earth evolved until the last century, yet somehow these people that wrote these Books in the Bible about this knew this? Or were they being guided in their writings?

Like water rising up from under the earth in a mist that became rain...covering the earth with oceans, then our land rising up... how did the writers know to write this 5000 years ago?

there are so many things like this, that i find amazing and beyond a coincidence in my logic and deserve consideration....and contemplation.

care

Beautifully said.. Very elegant. =) Thank you!

 

[JD_2B]

SCIENCE does NOT even know where all of our water on earth came from...they can only speculate....

Even were that true, which it isn't exactly, what would be your point?

What we do know is Roughly How Much Water We Have.

And it isn't enough to flood the entire Earth. It isn't even close. Which is why The Light is dodging the question. To have a flood, you need the water. And he can't come up with it.

ohhhhhhhhhhhhh, my apologies...i was not arguing on that, (though i could try to give a shot at it!) i guess i was just arguing for the sake of arguing, that we don't know everything YET, when it comes to even the volume of water we do have on earth....at least from what i last read on this, and from merely a layman's understanding.... it is ALL interesting to me.

Well, this brings us back to the whole perception argument- That God may have shown someone a vision of everything they knew to be "the World" to be covered in water.

This is a perception, and a perception may be seen and then scribed in such a way that it shows only one persons idea of it, which may or may not be completely adequate for us to understand what the vision really meant..

There is proof of large spread localized flooding in the area of the Ararat mountain range.

The vision may have been that of being unable to see the tops of the mountains and only seeing water that seemed to cover everything, when in fact, we all know how hard it is to see even 30 feet ahead of you in the rain- if it is raining hard enough, anyways... And considering the arid climate- and knowing that deserts get a "downpour" (meaning it is like a GIANT waterfall every so often- not rain, per se, and this is how it is present day, so we can come to some logical conclusion that probably not necessarily a downpour, but something HEAVY happened with rain in the area) then we can see it as a probability.

Then there is the issue of fog.. After the rain, there would of course be LOADS of fog, especially considering the climate in that area.. arid- so it is very hot, in spite of rain- so the water being evaporated would create a great deal of fog, and therefore make it difficult to see off into the distance for some time.

Therefore, my personal conclusion is that Moses got it a little wrong, wrote it a little off, and we just have to use our own current knowledge of how rain works based on varied climates, and how easy it might be for someone to simply perceive that the whole Earth was flooded, when it really was not..

And building an ark would just be a way of protecting the animals in that region from extinction.. as well as giving Moses' family plenty to eat.. eggs, milk, baby animals, etc..

 

[THE LIGHT]

Beyond that it depends. If you mean micro evolution I'm all for it.

There's no such thing as micro or macro evolution. There's just evolution. Those were terms made up by religious fanatics because bacterial evolution cannot be denied, and something had to be done to ensure the bible wasn't contradicted.

Micro evolution is called adapting. Macro evolution is called radical changes in life forms for no reason at all. The former has been observed to occur and is scientific in every way shape and form. The latter has never been observed and will never be observed because it can never be observed because it is only a belief.

If you disagree, please elaborate on the difference aside from timescale.

As for your fairy tale: why do you think the theory of evolution was developed? Anyone? Why did scientists spend lifetimes gathering data, refuting one another, and coming up with the most logical explanation for all the genetics, archaeology, anatomy, and physiology found? What's the motive here? And why is it that the most highly educated people in the country across the board agree that the evidence shows no doubt that evolution is true, while the most uneducated people in the country, across the board, are the most likely to think it's made up?

I think you already know.

 

[Setarcos]

according to the Bible and DNA is showing we all had one ancestor...we did not begin in different places which science once thought, science has now disproved their original hypothesis and shown through Dna mapping that it is as the Bible stated...we had one proverbial Adam and Eve.

Who did not live at the same time


Care, how do you have all the plants on Earth growing before the sun even exists?
\

The Bible said, from that point on, man began ''tilling the soil'' for their food...and low and behold, science says...through archaeology and paleontology etc....shows the progression of 'man' did precisely that...went from hunting and gathering of berries etc to TILLING the soil...agriculture reliant societies.

And they would have known that from oral history. Remember that they inherited the history and mythology, indirectly, of the Sumerians.

Like life beginning in our oceans...plants before creatures

and before the sun


and in different orders in the first two chapters

before man....all of this progression writen in the Bible....we did NOT KNOW THIS was the progression of how the life on earth and earth evolved until the last century, yet somehow these people that wrote these Books in the Bible about this knew this? Or were they being guided in their writings?

No. One of them realized that you need plants for the animals to eat and you need water for the plants to live...

 

[Setarcos]

Links to observed cases of specification were posted some time ago, making TL a liar.

 

[Care4all]

according to the Bible and DNA is showing we all had one ancestor...we did not begin in different places which science once thought, science has now disproved their original hypothesis and shown through Dna mapping that it is as the Bible stated...we had one proverbial Adam and Eve.

Who did not live at the same time


Care, how do you have all the plants on Earth growing before the sun even exists?
\

The Bible said, from that point on, man began ''tilling the soil'' for their food...and low and behold, science says...through archaeology and paleontology etc....shows the progression of 'man' did precisely that...went from hunting and gathering of berries etc to TILLING the soil...agriculture reliant societies.

And they would have known that from oral history. Remember that they inherited the history and mythology, indirectly, of the Sumerians.

Like life beginning in our oceans...plants before creatures

and before the sun


and in different orders in the first two chapters

before man....all of this progression writen in the Bible....we did NOT KNOW THIS was the progression of how the life on earth and earth evolved until the last century, yet somehow these people that wrote these Books in the Bible about this knew this? Or were they being guided in their writings?

No. One of them realized that you need plants for the animals to eat and you need water for the plants to live...

S,

The part I am addressing is the part about the sun and plants being formed before the sun.... I think that the Sun was there already, because on day one or Stage 1, it says...Let there be LIGHT and the light was good...

what we did not have, is the closeness to the sun that we got later, or our axis tilt so that we could absorb more sunlight than when we did not have our tilt bringing the 24 hours of day and night.

In Genesis 4, stage 4, what is being describe is the settling down of the galaxy and the affixing of the Stars and moon and sun and other planets in to the positions they are in now....(us being the perfect position of third rock from the sun), in the beginning planets were wild....the gravitational pulls from the larger planets were pushing us all around, the debris fields were still being gathered in by the planets gravity, it was chaos.....

all of this eventually settled down, we got hit by a protoplanet, which knocked us in to the axis position of 23 degrees that we are in today, and the debris coalesced from the massive impact, in less than 24 hours, formed our moon...this moons gravity along with our own and the suns, FIXED us in to the position were were in...giving us the conditions for advanced life to form....and as said, eventually our 24 hour days....initially it is believed that when the moon first formed we had 8 hour days but eventually lead to the permanent 24 hour days of today....

The planets and the stars stopped shifting around as they did in the beginning of the galaxy's existence...with the formations of the different planets and moons from the coalescing of the debris fields....

THIS is what Genesis 4 FOCUSES on in the text.

The sun was already there...we and all other planets were not fixed in to their permanent positions...the passage speaks of these things becoming fixed so that we could track days and time and travel from the Stars and sun...we would now have SEASONS....that could be foreseen by the tracking of the stars in the sky.

Also, initially...science was saying that we did not have life growing on earth in our early stages because we were too hot...now, with tests from the geyser pools at Yellowstone we know that life exists in these extremely hot pools, which is giving them second thought to when primordial life began on earth...

I can thoroughly understand why some people have rejected Genesis 1, (the creation story) I did it myself honestly, for a bit...it wasn't until I took an interest in how the Earth was Made and the Universe, did I start seeing and realizing that I had it all wrong on Genesis 1...that Genesis 1 was so much more accurate than I ever could have imagined.

I'm telling ya, I think moses knew more than he should have, regarding our creation and what he wrote in Genesis 1...this is how I see it now...I was wrong previously on it, and rejected it, because I could not get past DAY 1, or the word Day...without ever giving consideration to what Day might actually have meant or what any of the words in short story form from this passage actually meant...

NOW, I believe Genesis 1 and Evolution matches up pretty nicely...Evolution IS IN THE BIBLE, contrary to what some other Christians may think or NON christians may think....the word EVOLUTION may not have been coined yet at the time of genesis, but Moses is certainly describing a progression of stages that took place in our earth's development and the development and evolution of life here....that's just how I see it now.

I don't ask you to believe what I am seeing now in those words in Genesis...you can continue to believe what you will...my life on this topic has been a progression of events and thoughts, I don't expect it to be, or want it to be, any different for anyone else.

Care

 

[dilloduck]

geezer pools

They got places just for seniors at Yellowstone ?????

 

[Care4all]

geezer pools

They got places just for seniors at Yellowstone ?????

oops...geyser

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Well, this brings us back to the whole perception argument- That God may have shown someone a vision of everything they knew to be "the World" to be covered in water.

This is a perception, and a perception may be seen and then scribed in such a way that it shows only one persons idea of it, which may or may not be completely adequate for us to understand what the vision really meant..

The vision may have been that of being unable to see the tops of the mountains and only seeing water that seemed to cover everything, when in fact, we all know how hard it is to see even 30 feet ahead of you in the rain- if it is raining hard enough, anyways... And considering the arid climate- and knowing that deserts get a "downpour" (meaning it is like a GIANT waterfall every so often- not rain, per se, and this is how it is present day, so we can come to some logical conclusion that probably not necessarily a downpour, but something HEAVY happened with rain in the area) then we can see it as a probability.

Then there is the issue of fog.. After the rain, there would of course be LOADS of fog, especially considering the climate in that area.. arid- so it is very hot, in spite of rain- so the water being evaporated would create a great deal of fog, and therefore make it difficult to see off into the distance for some time.

Therefore, my personal conclusion is that Moses got it a little wrong, wrote it a little off, and we just have to use our own current knowledge of how rain works based on varied climates, and how easy it might be for someone to simply perceive that the whole Earth was flooded, when it really was not..

I really enjoyed how you set up completely unsubstantiated guesses, then drew "logical conclusions" and "probability" from those complete guesses, then discredited the bible entirely by saying it was written wrong, but that you REALLY know what it was supposed to say.

Micro evolution is called adapting.

False. Bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics do not adapt to their surroundings after the drug has been introduced so they can keep living. What I just described is adaptation, and it's not what bacteria do. In fact, bacteria have no way of adapting in that manner whatsoever.

Macro evolution is called radical changes in life forms for no reason at all.

Evolution does create change from mutation without reason, yes. This is exactly how bacteria gain antibiotic resistance. At some point during reproduction, little mutations are introduced into the bacterial DNA. Now most of these do absolutely nothing. Some even kill that particular cell. However, one such mutation might very slightly change the outer wall of the bacteria. When living in their normal happy environment, this doesn't really change them in any way. However, when an antibiotic is introduced for the first time, that change in the wall actually keeps that bacteria alive, when all its friends die. From there, it is able to continue reproducing, regrowing its numbers with antibiotic resistant bacteria.

It did not adapt to some new challenge. It had a change before the challenge came, which just so happened to have saved it.

Congratulations. You just demonstrated that there is no such thing between micro and macro evolution.

The latter has never been observed and will never be observed because it can never be observed because it is only a belief.

False. Way to get it wrong. Let me know if you have any other questions.

Also, initially...science was saying that we did not have life growing on earth in our early stages because we were too hot...now, with tests from the geyser pools at Yellowstone we know that life exists in these extremely hot pools, which is giving them second thought to when primordial life began on earth...

No. No it's not giving second thought. There is an order of events you just completely ignored. Specialized bacteria that can live in harsh environments such as heat vents and geysers came as a result of evolution. That's like drawing the conclusion that birds were the first organism on the planet because there was always air to fly through. There's an order of events you need to consider.

 

[JD_2B]

Well, this brings us back to the whole perception argument- That God may have shown someone a vision of everything they knew to be "the World" to be covered in water.

This is a perception, and a perception may be seen and then scribed in such a way that it shows only one persons idea of it, which may or may not be completely adequate for us to understand what the vision really meant..

The vision may have been that of being unable to see the tops of the mountains and only seeing water that seemed to cover everything, when in fact, we all know how hard it is to see even 30 feet ahead of you in the rain- if it is raining hard enough, anyways... And considering the arid climate- and knowing that deserts get a "downpour" (meaning it is like a GIANT waterfall every so often- not rain, per se, and this is how it is present day, so we can come to some logical conclusion that probably not necessarily a downpour, but something HEAVY happened with rain in the area) then we can see it as a probability.

Then there is the issue of fog.. After the rain, there would of course be LOADS of fog, especially considering the climate in that area.. arid- so it is very hot, in spite of rain- so the water being evaporated would create a great deal of fog, and therefore make it difficult to see off into the distance for some time.

Therefore, my personal conclusion is that Moses got it a little wrong, wrote it a little off, and we just have to use our own current knowledge of how rain works based on varied climates, and how easy it might be for someone to simply perceive that the whole Earth was flooded, when it really was not..

I really enjoyed how you set up completely unsubstantiated guesses, then drew "logical conclusions" and "probability" from those complete guesses, then discredited the bible entirely by saying it was written wrong, but that you REALLY know what it was supposed to say.

Then prove to me that my logical conclusions are illogical, and false, rather than just making fun of my post without adding anything to it. It is the bible- it is a perception of how things went, and because of it's nature, I have to do some deductive reasoning. You should try that sometime, yourself.

Micro evolution is called adapting.

False. Bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics do not adapt to their surroundings after the drug has been introduced so they can keep living. What I just described is adaptation, and it's not what bacteria do. In fact, bacteria have no way of adapting in that manner whatsoever.

Evolution does create change from mutation without reason, yes. This is exactly how bacteria gain antibiotic resistance. At some point during reproduction, little mutations are introduced into the bacterial DNA. Now most of these do absolutely nothing. Some even kill that particular cell. However, one such mutation might very slightly change the outer wall of the bacteria. When living in their normal happy environment, this doesn't really change them in any way. However, when an antibiotic is introduced for the first time, that change in the wall actually keeps that bacteria alive, when all its friends die. From there, it is able to continue reproducing, regrowing its numbers with antibiotic resistant bacteria.

It did not adapt to some new challenge. It had a change before the challenge came, which just so happened to have saved it.

Congratulations. You just demonstrated that there is no such thing between micro and macro evolution.

You do realize that bacteria BECOME resistant to antibiotics as a result of people not FINISHING their antibiotics.. This is the same thing with trying to kill cockroaches- pesticides only make the problem worse, because AFTER they are sprayed, the offspring of adult roaches that only got touched a little bit by the pesticide (and therefore were not killed, maybe damaged a little tiny bit though) have this stronger immunity to that same pesticide, themselves.
Same thing happens with babies who breastfeed- they basically get immunized naturally that way against viruses and such, because their mothers had certain sicknesses and carry the right antibodies to it. PS- Way to totally discount the fact that in ALL of these circumstances in evolution there happens to be a significant enough change that is environmentally dependent, just just sheer luck- as you say.. and not happening because all of these species happened to get lucky that this change happened before their environment was altered in any way. As the environment alters, so do the organism's physical attributes. THIS is not necessarily indicative of long term or interspecies change, but it is indicative of change, or short term mutation, and should at the very least be something that evolutionists AND creationists are aware of, and accept. Mutation does not equate to long term change in the first place, but DOES happen for a reason, as a result of something else.

The latter has never been observed and will never be observed because it can never be observed because it is only a belief.

False. Way to get it wrong. Let me know if you have any other questions.

Actually mutations have been observed as a result of their environment- not evolution, although they tried to call it that but mutations, yes.

Also, initially...science was saying that we did not have life growing on earth in our early stages because we were too hot...now, with tests from the geyser pools at Yellowstone we know that life exists in these extremely hot pools, which is giving them second thought to when primordial life began on earth...

No. No it's not giving second thought. There is an order of events you just completely ignored. Specialized bacteria that can live in harsh environments such as heat vents and geysers came as a result of evolution. That's like drawing the conclusion that birds were the first organism on the planet because there was always air to fly through. There's an order of events you need to consider.

And here comes some more BS from the peanut gallery once again- The door swings both ways, dude- you have to show that your mind can open up to others' ideas, if you want others to open up to your theories too. And Care4all's theories are spot on, with what science is determining.

Educate yourself, before putting the old ( I ) hat on, lol

Lukewarm Supervolcano
Geyser Life in Rock Pores

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Then prove to me that my logical conclusions are illogical

Not needed. Your logical conclusions based on your guesses are fine. Your guesses are, well, guesses. Once again, making things up and then drawing "logical conclusions" from it might be a nice thought experiment, but it has nothing to do with fact.

You do realize that bacteria BECOME resistant to antibiotics as a result of people not FINISHING their antibiotics.. This is the same thing with trying to kill cockroaches

Same thing happens with babies who breastfeed

False. Bacteria do not have immune systems. Bacteria do not become resistant because they encounter antibiotics. They are resistant because they had the resistant-mutation, all bacteria in the area without the resistance died, and they repopulated the colony with resistance genes. This is not a black and white issue as you are suggesting. If a bacteria has a mutation which allows for resistance of only a low dose of antibiotic, it will survive such a dose. When it then goes on to replicate, daughter cells similarly gain random mutations. Given that there already exists a gene that protects against low dose antibiotic, it's not too hard to then gain a mutation that protects against high dose.

Take for example the resistance mechanism whereby a bacteria literally pumps out antibiotic if taken in. Let's say a bacteria produces 5 such pumps, encounters 5 antibiotic molecules, and can pump them out just fine (bacteria lives). If it encounters 500 antibiotic molecules, it dies. So say it lives, and divides, and mutates. One such mutation might destroy the pump. Another mutation might upregulate it so that it creates 500 pumps on it. Guess what happens when someone take the next large dose?

I'm glad you understand the importance of taking a full antibiotic treatment, but it's clear you don't understand why. It's a step-wise process.

Actually mutations have been observed as a result of their environment- not evolution, although they tried to call it that but mutations, yes.

Well, yes. It's called cancer. What's your point?

And here comes some more BS from the peanut gallery once again- The door swings both ways, dude- you have to show that your mind can open up to others' ideas, if you want others to open up to your theories too. And Care4all's theories are spot on, with what science is determining.

Educate yourself, before putting the old ( I ) hat on, lol

Lukewarm Supervolcano
Geyser Life in Rock Pores

Neither of those links claim those bacteria were around when the world was "too hot". Perhaps you should read your own sources before telling me to educate myself. No scientific evidence has suggested that extremophiles were the first organisms on the planet.

 

[Setarcos]

The part I am addressing is the part about the sun and plants being formed before the sun.... I think that the Sun was there already, because on day one or Stage 1, it says...Let there be LIGHT and the light was good...

1) So you reject the apologetic response that says the light was the Big Bang?

2)Wrong

Genesis 1

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Day and night on day 1
PLants on day 3
Sun and moon on day 4

?!

what we did not have, is the closeness to the sun that we got later, or our axis tilt so that we could absorb more sunlight than when we did not have our tilt bringing the 24 hours of day and night.

The title doesn't effect how much light we get, only where we get it.

It doesn't just say he placed the lights- it says he made them on day 4. Your spin falls apart.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Micro evolution is called adapting.

False. Bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics do not adapt to their surroundings after the drug has been introduced so they can keep living. What I just described is adaptation, and it's not what bacteria do. In fact, bacteria have no way of adapting in that manner whatsoever.

I didn't say everything HAD to adapt, but let's wait and see what you say further on because I am sure you contradict yourself.

Evolution does create change from mutation without reason, yes. This is exactly how bacteria gain antibiotic resistance.

Golly gee will you look at that. Not but one paragraph later. It takes change to adapt moron. But mutations are not a good thing in animals or humans. In most cases mutations are just plain bad. Others they are a loss of information.

At some point during reproduction, little mutations are introduced into the bacterial DNA. Now most of these do absolutely nothing. Some even kill that particular cell.

Congratulations. You just demonstrated that there is no such thing between micro and macro evolution.

You just proved micro evolution and now you use your majic wand to apply it to macro.

Bugs can become resistant to bug sprays. Do you think they will ever become resistant to a sledge hammer?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Golly gee will you look at that. Not but one paragraph later. It takes change to adapt moron. But mutations are not a good thing in animals or humans. In most cases mutations are just plain bad. Others they are a loss of information.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the English language, so let's consult that dictionary thing to help you out.

Main Entry: ad·ap·ta·tion \ˌa-ˌdap-ˈtā-shən, -dəp-\
Function: noun
adjustment to environmental conditions: as a: adjustment of a sense organ to the intensity or quality of stimulation b: modification of an organism or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environment

Now, do the bacteria adjust based on sense of stimulation? Do they modify themselves or parts that make them more fit for existence under the condition of its environment?

The answer is NO! I'm guessing, even having read what actually happens, you still don't understand that. The change occurs before environmental conditions deem it necessary. In other words, change occurs randomly, not because it would make the bacteria more fit for that environment. If an environment comes along where that trait is helpful, great.

Allow me to dumb it down for you. Person A carries an umbrella with them every single day of their life, just in case it rains. Always has, always will, even if it's sunny out. Person B never carries an umbrella, but if he sees it's overcast or rainy outside, will take one with him. Only one of them adapted to the environmental situation being presented.

Just because you don't understand evolution doesn't mean everyone else is just as uneducated.

Bugs can become resistant to bug sprays. Do you think they will ever become resistant to a sledge hammer?

Yet again you demonstrate how you do not understand evolution. Evolution is not about every mutation creating a good outcome. It's not about productive, helpful, or even life-saving changes. In a previous post I even explained how natural selection is a step-wise process, so it's rather inane of you to use such an extremist viewpoint. Most PEOPLE can't survive a sledgehammer. Why do you think a cockroach will? Evolution doesn't suggest that, as the force generated by such a human tool does not exist in nature, but for some reason you do. Why?

Again I ask: what are the differences between what you consider micro and macro evolution? Because no legitimate science textbook in the US even makes such a distinction, but apparently undereducated hicks can make things up.

 

[gcomeau]

has it been explained yet, how modern humans came to have a much larger brain, compared to previous humans? Have they found the missing link yet that shows a progression of this change?

The same way humans came to have... everything. They developed it over many many successive generations.

Then the scripture about adam and eve living off land naturally, to then being sent out of this self supplying Eden....we know we began as humans in one place and then spread out....according to the Bible and DNA is showing we all had one ancestor...we did not begin in different places which science once thought, science has now disproved their original hypothesis and shown through Dna mapping that it is as the Bible stated...we had one proverbial Adam and Eve.

No. No No No. You have that completely wrong. DNA is not showing we had ONE human ancestor. It is showing we have a common ancestor. That is completely different than what you just said.

Ok... imagine that, say, 500 years ago in some small town a lady named "Betty" had some kids.

They grew up, got married, had kids of their own... process repeated over and over again, the entire family all stayed in town every generation...

500 years later there isn't a single person in town (VERY small town) who can't trace their ancestry back to Betty. The entire town hjas Betty as a common ancestor.

That does NOT mean everyone in the town came ONLY from Betty and her husband (or possibly Betty and her first husband, who died young... and Betty and her second husband she remarried for that matter) 500 years ago. She is just one ancestor, of many many many many... that everyone happens to share in common. And she's almost certainly not the only common ancestor, just the most recent.

Now , the equivalent of "Betty" for the entire human race is referred to as "Mitochondrial Eve".( Yes, whoever thought up the name thought it would be neat or funny or something to call this person "Eve'.) She lived about 150,000 to 250,000 years ago.

On the male side, "Y Chromosomal Adam" is the most recent male common ancestor of all humans. He lived about 60,000 years ago... nowhere near "Eve".

Clear?

Some may laugh at this as well, but I asked myself....HOW did the writers of these Books know this 5000 years ago, when they wrote it? It's worth pursuing...

They didn't know this. They said nothing about this.

The Bible said, from that point on, man began ''tilling the soil'' for their food...and low and behold, science says...through archaeology and paleontology etc....shows the progression of 'man' did precisely that...went from hunting and gathering of berries etc to TILLING the soil...agriculture reliant societies.

You realize that for the people writing the bible that progression was still relatively recent history for them, right? Them knowing that is about as "amazing" as us "somehow" knowing that there was a Roman empire. Wow... how do we do that???

Like life beginning in our oceans...plants before creatures, fish before birds, animals before man....all of this progression writen in the Bible....

No, it isn't.

The genesis creation account says flowering and seeded plants came on "day" 3, and sea life came on "day" 5.

That's wrong. Flowering and seeded plants were WAY after fish.

And it says fish and birds were created at the same time, then land animals after. That's also wrong since birds developed from reptiles.

we did NOT KNOW THIS was the progression of how the life on earth and earth evolved until the last century, yet somehow these people that wrote these Books in the Bible about this knew this? Or were they being guided in their writings?

Or, they just guessed. And to repeat... they guessd wrong.

Like water rising up from under the earth in a mist that became rain...covering the earth with oceans, then our land rising up... how did the writers know to write this 5000 years ago?

Know to write what? That water "came from" rain? Or that rain clouds came from "mist" that evaporated off the ground?

Ummm, because they had eyes and that's what they saw?