convince an evolutionist that the God of Scripture is real?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


What law says u cant learn about other theories? anyway...
You have to get a flu shot every year because the flu mutates and changes, this you know. it does not prove Darwinian evolution or any other type of evolution and i never said it did. all it does is to show that change in a species happens. If you want a specific example of specieation i will have to get back to you to make sure i have my facts in order. and mutation is the CHANGE in genetic information, though loss is change so i suppose that is technically true. i will post back with an example in a bit.

A plausible model: We have several plausible models of how speciation occurs—but of course, it’s hard for us to get an eye-witness account of a natural speciation event since most of these events happened in the distant past. We can figure out that speciation events happened and often when they happened, but it’s more difficult to figure out how they happened. However, we can use our models of speciation to make predictions and then check these predictions against our observations of the natural world and the outcomes of experiments. As an example, we’ll examine some evidence relevant to the allopatric speciation model.

Scientists have found a lot of evidence that is consistent with allopatric speciation being a common way that new species form:

* Geographic patterns: If allopatric speciation happens, we’d predict that populations of the same species in different geographic locations would be genetically different. There are abundant observations suggesting that this is often true. For example, many species exhibit regional “varieties” that are slightly different genetically and in appearance, as in the case of the Northern Spotted Owl and the Mexican Spotted Owl. Also, ring species are convincing examples of how genetic differences may arise through reduced gene flow and geographic distance.

Spotted owl ranges
Spotted owl subspecies living in different geographic locations show some genetic and morphological differences. This observation is consistent with the idea that new species form through geographic isolation.
evolution.berkeley.edu...

This is the best i could find in a short amount of time, sorry.

reply to post by Aggamemnon
Okay, sorry for having to go earlier, I had an interview to do, but while driving I can forsee this argument completely derailing this thread. So, let's go about this a different way...

Staying in the frame laid out by the OP let me ask you a Q. I presume you are an evolutionist, and for aruments sake lets first define what form of evolution you are advocating.

Secondly, let me ask you what evidence would you consider valid to reject Evolution?

If I were to answer my own Q, what it would take for me to rejct Creationism I would need to see evidence of an organism giving birth to a different animal other than it's kind. Example: A dog having offspring that was not a dog.

Originally posted by Aggamemnon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

What law says u cant learn about other theories? anyway...
You have to get a flu shot every year because the flu mutates and changes, this you know. it does not prove Darwinian evolution or any other type of evolution and i never said it did. all it does is to show that change in a species happens. If you want a specific example of specieation i will have to get back to you to make sure i have my facts in order. and mutation is the CHANGE in genetic information, though loss is change so i suppose that is technically true. i will post back with an example in a bit.

But no creationist denies variations occur within the species, I have personally seen albino cave fish in mammoth cave, over thousands of years they have mutated to no longer need pigmintation for protection. But they are still fish. variations occur all the time, you are 100% correct. However, I have never seen any evidence of an animal or organism or virus etc that has changed species.

I bring up the fact that mutations actually lose information to point out that when this occurs on a cellular level it makes it impossible for a mutation to evolve a simple organism into a more complex one.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I am not sure how to answer the first question as i am unaware there are diferent types of evolution.
but as for the proof i would require to disprove evolution... well no one can disprove ANYTHING. so, i will say what proof i would require for creationism to take evolutions place. The first and most obvious one for me would be to, say, identify the actual point of creation. Some of the more conservative creationists say that the earth is in fact much much younger than is currently the popular scientific belief, something that can easily be researched and verified. These are really the only arguments actually put forth by creationism that i am aware of. Since a lot of creationist arguments involve questioning something then not accepting any answer that is put forth by evolution. the other common tactic is to argue against evolution by trying to disprove it, which as stated above, is impossible.
As to the proof you require... you are, in my opinion, asking for the moon.
It is not only impossible, but entirely unrelated to evolution. a species doesn't just spring into existence from one generation to the next. it happens gradually over time.

reply to post by Aggamemnon
So if you cannot see it happen or repeat it with the scientific method then how can you call it scientific fact???

Darwinian evolution is NEITHER verifiable or repeatable.

Obviously, if it were it would be a scientific law. but its not. its a theory. And once again your arguing against... try arguing for creationism AND against evolution. More fun that way

I forgot to explin the different forms of evolution, many times a person in this debate will point to a different form of evolution that DOES occur and we can see and verify as 'proof' of Darwinian evolution. Examples:

A: Stellar and Planetary Evolution (the origin of stars and planets)
B: Cosmic Evolution (the origin of space, time, matter and energy from nothing)
C: Chemical Evolution (the development of the larger elements from hydrogen)
D: Biological Evolution (the development and diversification of biological life, often broken into microevolution and macroevolution)

reply to post by Aggamemnon
It's reveared as scientific law, that's the problem I'm glad you noted it.

Let me ask you a question, do you believe in the Big Bang theory for the creation of our universe?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


As far as it goes... its a rather horrible theory though as all it dues is say "we know what made the universe... a big bang!!" but that just begs the question what caused the big bang?
i dont personally believe it was god, but it might as well have been for all i or anyone else knows...

reply to post by make.changes


I honestly don't know how. There is nothing in our power that we can do. All we can do is pray for them and turn the issue over to God. I have run around in circles pulling my hair out trying to get others to realize God exists.

This is what gave me some comfort:

'In the last days scoffers will come... They will say, "...Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by Gods word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.' -2 Peter 3:3-6

How do you convince someone who 'deliberately forgets?'

In context, the above is an end times prophecy- one of hundreds we are seeing fulfilled in our time. Throughout recorded human history, mankind has believed in some form of supernatural creation event. Cultures across the globe believed in creation stories and several even held a story about a great flood.

However, the above prophecy states that in the end times, a shift would occur where mankind would 'willfully forget' God was the force behind creation and our existence and that the world was destroyed by a flood. What do we have occurring today? For the first time a world-wide belief in secular origins and that a flood was impossible. This is no coincidence.

Unfortunately, it's the way things are supposed to be right now. Because nobody can convince someone who makes a deliberate decision, all you can do is submit to prayer and set a good example.

[edit on 9/15/2009 by AshleyD]

reply to post by NOTurTypical



Also, here is your proof that you asked for.... a Liger, a hybrid of a lion and a tiger.
This doesnt prove evolution but it IS what you asked for lol.

[edit on 16-9-2009 by Aggamemnon]

Originally posted by make.changes
to clarify im not an evolutionist im a christian who believes in the creation story of the bible. so how do you convince an evolutionist that the god of scripture is real, for all athiests and evolutionists.

Im can get very sadistic in a heated debate. But discussion is simple an exchange of knowledge. And I debate with logic if my goal is to win an argument.

If you want to "convince" anyone to believe, ask God to do his magic.
Otherwise, you'll be exchange ideas like your exchanging fire in a game of Battleship. It becomes a matter of winning an losing rather than convincing.

God works in mysterious ways, so don't go searching for ways to convince. Rather, look for information to build your faith.

If your looking for a practical reason why you should just trust God, here it is:

People can't be swayed with logic
But emotions can make change possible

When God touches their soul, they'll act accordingly. He's The Master of everything now, don't doubt his goals and reasons.

If that person doesn't believe, just know that it's already been noted in his gameplan with a purpose that suits his goal. Even if it means he'll never come into terms with God.

Originally posted by Aggamemnon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Also, here is your proof that you asked for.... a Liger, a hybrid of a lion and a tiger.
This doesnt prove evolution but it IS what you asked for lol.

[edit on 16-9-2009 by Aggamemnon]

Tigers and Lions are of the same kind, they can reproduce. An donkey and a horse can reproduce, as can a horse and a zebra. These animals are of the same kind. That means they have a common ancestor.

A dog and a wolf can reproduce, they are of the same kind and likewise have a common ancestor. Humans and apes or chimps cannot reproduce. Meaning we are NOT of the same kind, logic tells us we have NO common ancestor.

ok since when did we stop useing species? what is "kind" lol
lions and tigers are NOT the same species, yet ligers can in fact reproduce.
horses and donkeys produce offspring which are always sterile and cannot reproduce. dogs and wolves are actually the same species. these animals share a common ancestor that was not very far removed. we and chimps share a common ancestor that is much further removed.

I am curious on what you think of the other types of humans like neanderthals? did god create them to? they had language, culture and very likely had their own religion as well. I look forward to hearing what you think.

reply to post by Aggamemnon
Well, I'm sure you can infer that I am a young earth creationist, so I believe that these "neanderthals" are nothing more than pre-flood humans which the Bible says lived to almost 1,000 years old. Many counties have legends of their "Golden Age" when humans lived to be 1,000 years old.

Are you aware that the bones of the skull never stop groing? This is fact, and the 'neanderthal" sklls are thought to be a transitional species. Remember seeing the photos of these skulls with abnormlly large brow bones?? I'd argue these are skulls of humans who died right after the flood.

U2U me if you would like me to link you to a video from creationists pointing out vrifyable lies in todays textbooks. (One of these lies has been in the books for 128 years....)

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I am sorry i am not sure how to send u2us lmao

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Actually to your comments above, you asked for a species not an entirely new kingdom of animal. So yes a Liger is a new type of species that can reproduce. It is also one of the most deadly animals. Its about the size of a Tiger and a Lion combined. Also have you heard of the Polar bear / brown bear mix? It happened completely through nature. It in its self is a new species of bear. Still the same kingdom of animals.

Also there is proven change amongst animals living in different environments. Whether it be the way the hunt or physical changes to adapt to their environment. Just like the great white sharks, some jump to catch their prey, while others do not. This isn't conflict of interest between the sharks, this is adaptive change. There is also change in physical properties, as Darwin mentioned in his book when he went to the Galapagos Island. He wrote that many animals had different physical properties such as longer necks or longer legs to help them feed or hunt. Compared to the same species of animal found in different regions.

Humans for another fact, we are one species but vary in physical traits. Take skin color for instance, there are white, black, yellow, and brown. Even Asians have a extra skin over the eye, also a shorter nose. These are physical characteristics that differ from many humans today. The extra skin over the eye is believed to keep sun out of their eyes, and the shorter nose is to prevent frost bite. This is another example of Adaptive Change. They change to there environment that is type of evolution.

To your 55% of scientist believe in creationism, Aggamemnon is right. You most likely made that up because any research will show that 86 percent of eminent scientists do not believe in God. Instead of 45% Believe in creation it is more like 24% I am giving Creation the benefit here. This pole was taken on a 1-7. 7 is Strongly agree there is god, 1 is disagree. 78.8% Chose 1 while 12 chose 7 and a 213 picked 2. 1074 scientist of the Royal Society. So that 23% makes up anyone that answered 3-6. While another study in America was done and only 7% believe in the Creation theory. So that is 93% Disagree with creation. That seems to be much more than 55%.

P.S even on the CreationWiki web page it claims that only 0.15 Scientist in the world believe in creation



[edit on 16-9-2009 by Benihime]

reply to post by Benihime


I will respond much more tonight when I get home from work, kinda running late. For now I want to address 1 aspect of your post:


"To your 55% of scientist believe in creationism, Aggamemnon is right. You most likely made that up because any research will show that 86 percent of eminent scientists do not believe in God."


I never claimed 55% of scientists believe in creationism. That is a straw man argument. I said 55% of scientists believe in DARWINIAN EVOLUTION. I didn't respond to his comment before because it was absurd tripe.

This statement was posted in the August 31, 1998 edition of the Washington Times. Look for yourself.

More to respond to later, sorry but I am late as it is.

Have you heard of a miss print D:? I wanted to say Evolution way to attack someone for a typo. Oh and Absurd tripe? Let me get this straight, you're attacking me for a typo, and then you miss use a word like tripe?

lining of the stomach of a ruminant (especially a bovine) used as food
folder

That is the definition of tripe.

1998 does not equal 2009 11 years have passed use more up to date information.
Heck I can go back 40 years and get arrested for mentioning Evolution.

Don't attack someone for presenting a valid argument. Absurd Tripe as you say is a attack. I posted my argument and you in response attack me for it. Use common knowledge and do not attack someone for presenting an argument. My facts, yes I will call them facts because they are proven, they are not theory but proven! Also how can my argument be so absurd when the CreationWiki even claims 0.15% Believe in creation? I got that out of a CREATIONISM WIKI as in people who believe in creation made it and maintain it... So please next time come back with more of an argument then a simple attack. Also you must have known it was a typo its only 10% off so there really isn't a huge difference.



Retaliation:

The earth was created 10,000 years ago according to the creationwiki but we have evidence that the earth has been around for 4,000,600,000 years ago. We have DNA evidence that puts human existence around 80,000 years ago. The Roman empire lasted until 1461 and you say there was a flood 1000 years ago. So that would be around 1009, but there is no evidence to a great flooding of any kind, the romans didn't document it nor did ANY OTHER CIVILIZATION. On that topic to flood the entire earth (here is a little common knowledge for you) You would need enough water to FLOOD THE ENTIRE EARTH. You cant have a gallon of water and say its 2 gallons its still one gallon. You can use the ice caps but evidence shows that the last ice age was over 100,000 YEARS AGO. Science shows that. You would know if you used a little bit of common sense instead of attacking someone for presenting facts. To prove it to you we have a thing called Half life. Half life is the time it takes for a certain an objects to be come half of its self. So say we have element (X) element X's half life is about 126,000 years before it becomes half of its self. We take how much is missing and determine how many cycles its gone through. Say it went through 4 cycles this would put Element X age around 504,000 years.
This is a method for determining objects age. There is also Carbon dating. I don't feel like explaining that because you will just attack me and say that I lack knowledge and my comments are absurd, I lack science and I should embrace god.


P.S if I miss interpreted the 1,000 year comment my bad. But the fact remains there would be evidence and some sort of documentation on such.

The 55% that supports Evolution, the fact still remains you made that up. Because multiple test show that to be wrong. As I stated in my Comment above. Thanks for dodging my comment and attacking a typo.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Benihime]