Changes

== Adaptation and evolution ==

== Adaptation and evolution ==

Adaptation and Evolution are the same thing - you can't claim that 'something adapted (because of changes to it's environment)' and then deny the validity of the Theory of Evolution.  That is using a slight varient in words to suit your needs, not presenting facts to prove or disprove anything.

Adaptation and Evolution are the same thing - you can't claim that 'something adapted (because of changes to it's environment)' and then deny the validity of the Theory of Evolution.  That is using a slight varient in words to suit your needs, not presenting facts to prove or disprove anything.

I was brought up with proper Christian morals, not concerned with politics, but the real Christian morals of caring for others out of kindness and treating every person as the same; the morals as taught by Christ.  I am not a true Christian, in the Creationist, Church going sense, as I feel spiritual discovery is too subjective to be institutionalized, but the value of the lessons of the Bible are not lost on me and I will seek out my own spiritual awakening.  That does not mean that I deny the idea of God.  The further you delve into molecular and astrological science, the more you realise that we are part of a greater plan, a bigger scheme, but that we in no way comprehend what it is yet.  We are just learning, moving forward and we are finding answers.  If you believe in God, do him justice, DO NOT simplify the beauty of what he has created, the intrinsic, interconnected nature of everything.  IT IS NO MISTAKE.  But do not preach false truths of simplified realities, because to me, it is just sinful and wicked.  If there is a God, he will want us to fully understand the beauty of his creation, not deny it.

I was brought up with proper Christian morals, not concerned with politics, but the real Christian morals of caring for others out of kindness and treating every person as the same; the morals as taught by Christ.  I am not a true Christian, in the Creationist, Church going sense, as I feel spiritual discovery is too subjective to be institutionalized, but the value of the lessons of the Bible are not lost on me and I will seek out my own spiritual awakening.  That does not mean that I deny the idea of God.  The further you delve into molecular and astrological science, the more you realise that we are part of a greater plan, a bigger scheme, but that we in no way comprehend what it is yet.  We are just learning, moving forward and we are finding answers.  If you believe in God, do him justice, DO NOT simplify the beauty of what he has created, the intrinsic, interconnected nature of everything.  IT IS NO MISTAKE.  But do not preach false truths of simplified realities, because to me, it is just sinful and wicked.  If there is a God, he will want us to fully understand the beauty of his creation, not deny it.

:::I have enough passion in what I believe.  I just don't let it adversely affect my thinking.  So you are telling me that you cannot conclusively prove what you say is true?  Well, I commend your honesty.  I ''do'' in fact believe that removing God from any part of Creation is blasphemy.  If the Bible said that God created the "Big Bang" and people were trying to tell me that he created each species in the beginning, then I would have to say what they spoke was a form of blasphemy.  However, I also believe saying God did something, when the Bible says He did something else would be blasphemous as well.  Wouldn't you agree?  --[[User:David R|<font color="#0092FF">David R</font>]][[User talk:David R|^{<font color="#FFCC00">talk</font>}]] 14:54, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:::I have enough passion in what I believe.  I just don't let it adversely affect my thinking.  So you are telling me that you cannot conclusively prove what you say is true?  Well, I commend your honesty.  I ''do'' in fact believe that removing God from any part of Creation is blasphemy.  If the Bible said that God created the "Big Bang" and people were trying to tell me that he created each species in the beginning, then I would have to say what they spoke was a form of blasphemy.  However, I also believe saying God did something, when the Bible says He did something else would be blasphemous as well.  Wouldn't you agree?  --[[User:David R|<font color="#0092FF">David R</font>]][[User talk:David R|^{<font color="#FFCC00">talk</font>}]] 14:54, 31 January 2008 (EST)

<small>(Rather than allow the sections to grow indefinitely, I've moved these latest posts out of the "Day 6 Creation Mechanisms?" section.  The last post in that section was many months ago, and the first new post did not follow directly from the last one there.  However, I invite the poster (Entheogenicorder) to add an introduction to his 16:35, 31 January post referencing what in that earlier section he is replying to, if he wishes.)</small>

 

Leading creationists recommend that we ''don't'' talk about micro- vs. macro-evolution, as it obscures what the real problem is.  The real problem is the ''type'' (or ''direction'') of change, not the ''size'' of the change.

 

Secondly, evolutionary scientists do in fact claim evolution to be a ''fact''.  In science, the word "theory" does ''not'' imply something uncertain.

 

Now on to Entheogenicorder's posts:

 

"''Adaptation and Evolution are the same thing''":  As DavidR has pointed out, this is simply not true, although it does depend on how one [[Definitions of evolution|defines evolution]] (read that).  Adaptation can have a few mechanisms, but micro-to-man evolution is not the same as adaptation.

 

"''If you believe in God, do him justice, DO NOT simplify the beauty of what he has created, the intrinsic, interconnected nature of everything.''", "''Wouldn't it be blasphemous to deny him of this splendour?''":  I don't believe at all that creationists are doing that.  But I would add, as DavidR has mentioned, DO NOT reject the clear things that God has told us.  He [[creation Week|''clearly'' told us that He created the world in six days]] (among other things that He said that contradict evolution).  How about "doing Him justice" by taking Him at His Word?  It would be blasphemy to deny what He clearly said.

 

 

"''[The change from herbivory to carnivory] requires a large amount of adaptation to the digestive make-up of the dinosaur, as can be seen by the differences between herbivores and carnivores today''":  First, the Bible specifically says that God made some changes at the time of the fall.  He doesn't specifically mention carnivory, and I'm not putting that forward as ''the'' explanation, but it is a ''possible'' explanation.  Second, many supposed carnivores survive quite well on a herbivorous diet.  There's not that much difference.  Third, herbivores, such as sheep and cows, have been seen acting as carnivores.  Fourth, there are examples where two closely-related species have one being carnivorous and one being herbivorous&mdash;there's not necessarily large amounts of adaptation involved at all.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/279/] Sixth, some creatures classified on the basis of their morphology as carnivorous are herbivorous (e.g. fruit bat, same reference).

 

"''I enjoyed my little rant, and would love to focus on the facts, if there were any that could be conclusively proved, thanks!''": So you are rejecting what God has clearly said on the basis of something that cannot be conclusively proved?  I think you have your priorities a bit wrong.

 

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:28, 31 January 2008 (EST)