Keep researching the matter. It is always interesting to watch people delve into it and discover the roots of Planned Parenthood.

And yet so powerful

Kudos!

I have just found the blogs and am so thrilled to find stuff on sexual abuse and trauma. Thank you for your courage and good luck with your healing .

Blessings Karen

“DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste.”

Genetically identical. No change in genetics. No ’speciation’… only adaptation to a new environment. Even with the addition of cecal valves. They noted the correlation between the appearance of the cecal valves and the presence of nematodes in the gut. It is not beyond belief that the coding for such a thing was already in their DNA and that the new dietary change turned on the coding in their DNA. It is also possible that they once had cecal valves in the past and just lost the need for them after their diet changed for a period of time to a meatier fare… and now visa versa. If they reintroduced each population to each other they would more than likely still reproduce with each other. If some of the new lizards were taken back to the original island, would they survive? Perhaps – since they still have insects as part of their diet.

And this is where you miss the significance. By saying they are genetically identical, it is not to say it’s the same species (a newly evolved species is going to be pretty much identical except for the things that cause them to be a new species). The signifiance of saying they are genetically identical is to say that they did reproduce with the original lizards on the islands. So any more objections to this example?

Speciation is biological evolution that gives rise to a new species… I understand that. Most people understand it as hybridization, which is one form of speciation and the most well known. So when you use a word such as speciation, many laymen think you are talking about (let’s say) a pseudo chimera-type jump or something like that. Not everyone has a deeper knowledge of scientific terms nor would they need to unless they were in the scientific field or were just obsessed with all things scientific.

Fair enough, but that doesn’t address the rest of the examples.

Scientific methodology – doesn’t that start with a question? I understand quite well what the scientific method is (as I am not stupid) and understand there are steps that one takes in order to prove or disprove a hypothesis. You say if something is unfalsifiable then it is not science…

Because one cannot truly know how life started on earth, since no one was there to observe it. You can’t test it in the lab, since the exact conditions are unknown. No one truly knows the exact time period between the creation of the universe and the placement of life on earth. Yet people use science all the time to try and determine these things… but will they ever actually know? Can these things ever be known? If not does that mean their hypothesis is unfalsifiable, since they can only falsify known information? Can we take seriously Dawkins statement (on film) that it is more plausible for aliens to have planted life on earth than for God to have created life? What aliens? Does that mean Dawkins isn’t using science to form his conclusions? (And more, does it disqualify him from practicing science in his field? Because as far as I know there are no aliens out there… there is no evidence to show the presence of aliens. I think there might have been an article somewhere if they had found aliens… But Dawkins basically states that it is possible that aliens planted life here. Of course, maybe he should consider working with the area-51 conspiracy theorists to prove that the government is covering up the existence of aliens. That would solve everything.)

Yes seriously. You are still conflating abiogenesis with evolution. Nor are you answering how you propose to falsify God.

Evolutionists defend their belief in spontaneous creation of life on earth from chemicals – this is pure speculation (unobservable) and it is based on philosophy… since it is not “falsifiable”. There is no way to know unless you were there.

See above, but never mind the fact that there ARE some falsifiable tests for abiogenesis that have passed. For example, if we could not form amino acids (which we have) that would have falsified abiogenesis. But that worked. This is exactly the problem with Creationism. You claim “not observable,” “not falsifiable” by ignoring all the falsifiable tests that were done.

Yet, many evolutionary scientists see this as the very foundation of their research. They work under the assumption of life coming from time and chance.

You mean the same way evolution is treated as the foundation of much of biological research? By golly, that means all the research going on couldn’t be happening!

If what the schools want to teach is pure science, then they do not need to teach anything that is based on philosophy or religion. I can agree to that. However, since the Theory of Evolution is rooted in a ’scientific’ discipline which is based on the idea that there is no God and that life came from nothing by chance and developed over a nonspecified period of time (multiple millions of years) then perhaps they just need to take the Theory itself out of science class and place the study into a special scientific philosophy wing at school. Pure “observable, testable” science can stay in the main classroom areas.
False again. Evolution (how many times do I need to repeat this?) does not say anything about God. Evolution says as far as we can tell, this is how species (note how I did not say Life, very key distinction) came about. If you wish to attribute the processes we discover to God, great! But you cannot inject an unfalsifable God into it.

You said, “You cannot just poke holes in a theory and think it will go away. If there is nothing better that can replace it, it will still be the best we have, and thus will remain the dominant theory…”

Especially when they bully theorists who have differing philosophical worldviews and force anyone studying to become a scientist to adhere to their humanistic philosophy, or else be out on their ear.

Cute, but no. We’re talking ID proponents who have admitted themselves that they do absolutely no research.

Kind of like the Roman Catholic Church once did to Galileo when he tried to prove the earth revolved around the sun.
He was considered a heretic and forced to recant his position.

Like then, the evolutionists have taken over the position of “Pope” to the church of science. It is a religious position in that they will tolerate NO dissent and NO views which may refute their assertion that life came from nothing and evolved into computer techies and movie critics. To the evolutionists, it is a sin against science to even suggest the presence of anything other than pure chance in the process of life.

Cute again, but you have it in reverse. You forget Darwin WAS the Galileo of his time when pretty much everyone except maybe some paleontologists, who were already discovering things that would later confirm evolution in the fossil records, were Creationists. The position Creationists occupy now is the equivalent of the the modern Flat Earth Society (yes they exist today).

This is what this whole debate is about. Academic freedom. We are not arguing that evolutionists should be forced out, but that scientists who have other philosophical viewpoints should be allowed to practice as well. If their science is faulty, people will know soon enough. One’s philosophical viewpoint should not keep one out of the career they love and excel in. And this is exactly what has happened. It is pure philosophical discrimination.

No, it is not about academic freedom. It is about political mongering by those who have staked their entire religion on a God of the Gaps seeing their god shrinking away. Have you noticed the proportion of lawyers to biologists on the Creationist front?

The atheists featured in the Expelled film, Dawkins, Harris, Meyer, etc, that are attacking people of faith by calling them names or questioning their credibility is an attempt at creating intolerance for people of other philosophical viewpoints. These men (and women – let’s not forget the Eugenie’s out there) are creating a prejudice against anyone who does not hold to a particular philosophy – humanism – and attempting to cut people of faith out of a particular field of study by insinuating their philosophy disqualifies them for it.

To “disqualify” a person in this way is purely political in nature and done in order to remain the only candidates for public funding (and perhaps in order to maintain a more prestigious place in the public eye – rooted on pride.)

Hey, I’m not a fan of Dawkins either. They indeed have philosophical viewpoints that are not scientific, but that in no way invalidates evolution itself.

But you should check out the people who were *actually fired*, forced to recant, physically assaulted, and threatened with death for teaching evolution or questioning Creationism. Did you even know about all these people? http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=626

Is there not room for more than one philosophical theory of the origins of life? Creationists and IDers are not afraid of the word “evolution”. It just means change. However, we do dispute the philosophy of humanism that maintains God had nothing to do with any of it. We believe that a scientists should be able to voice his views on faith (even within his science) without having to fear ridicule or loosing their jobs because of their worldview. A Christian can do an experiment just as well as the next person.

Indeed there is, but as you admit, it’s philosophy. So teach it in philosophy class. Nobody is stopping you. On the same note, Dawkins and co. also need to keep their philosophies in philosophy and out of science.

Did you know that valid research in science has had to be shelved simply because a scientist mentioned design or God? Valid scientific research where the scientists belief system did not effect the outcome. One scientist estimated anywhere between 10-15% of the valid research that was done in his field was shelved because the research implied design. (I’d have to look up the interview to get the exact statement, but that is about the amount I remember). The implications did not, however, effect the results in the least. How much of that research could be used to find cures or make new discoveries that would help further the study of science? No one will ever know – how sad is that?

Show these articles. If it’s true, it’s unfortunate. But because of the massive amount of quote-mining and lying (and Expelled is a classic example) done by Creationists, I’m afraid I cannot take this at face value and will need to look at the actual “shelved valid research” themselves. Also, scientists are also human, and some people will do stuff for selfish reasons. Non-scientist Christians do it too. That does not mean there’s some vast conspiracy out there.

The philosophy of evolution did not originate with Darwin – he just gave it an observable mechanism – natural selection. This is not what we are even debating – that animals and plants adapt according to their habitat and other factors which may over time change their physical attributes within specified parameters (DNA coding allowances) – however, what we ARE disputing is the assertion that evolutionist (or more properly Darwinist) scientists make that life happened by
chance and there is no other way.

Again, you conflate abiogenesis with evolution.

But that part of their theory is not testable. Therefore, it does not fall within the parameters of testable science – and is not science. It is philosophy and should be taught as such.

There is also the problem of DNA – how did DNA come into existence? If life happened by chance, where did the life-specific coding come from? Coding for a cell wall? Coding for movement? Coding for sexual reproduction of two different sexes? How did the coding develop into such a well regulated, self-contained system (machine) within each individual cell? All out of a chemical soup which contained no life whatsoever?

But it is. Just because the full explanation for abiognesis has not been formed yet does not give you the right to pretend all the experiments that HAVE been done that validates parts of it don’t exist.

This is the other problem with Creationism. Argument from Personal Incredulity. By the Creationist argument, because we don’t know, Goddidit. End of thought. End of further research. The utmost antithesis of science. This is one of the reasons I am so against Creationism, and the continued lack of research by Creationists pretty much seals the deal. You guys spend years and money writing books attacking evolution. Even if it was true, that there was some vast conspiracy out there stopping you guys from publishing your research in science journals, that does NOT stop you from publishing your research elsewhere. I should be seeing this research in Creationist books. It’s just all anti-evolution. Where’s the pro-Creaionist stuff?

“We now know that the DNA molecule is an intricate
message system. To claim that DNA arose by random
material forces is to say that information can arise by
random material forces. Many scientists argue that the
chemical building blocks of the DNA molecule can be
explained by natural evolutionary processes. However,
they must realize that the material base of a message is
completely independent of the information transmitted.
Thus, the chemical building blocks have nothing to do
with the origin of the complex message. As a simple
illustration, the information content of the clause ‘nature
was designed’ has nothing to do with the writing material
used, whether ink, paint, chalk or crayon.”

Evolution by natural selection (’Gradualism’) depends on short, slow changes in an organism changing into a more advanced organism from a simple one. It does not work in large leaps. Darwin himself conceded that, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Sorry, but I’m going to test you. What is the difference between Gradualism and Punctuated Equilibrium? And what does the modern evolutionary theory say about the two. If you get this wrong, I’m afraid I will have to ask you to read your science books more because the way you’re using this argument smells of classic quote-mining and not understanding what the argument between Gradualism and Punk Eek was actually about.

But when scientific evidence appears which demonstrates complex organs in existence that could not have developed little by little, but must have developed all at once to even be functional, humanist evos begin to convulse and scream, “You can’t say GOD did that! There is NO GOD!”

The ear, with all the little specialized bones which make it function. The aural nerve which carries the signals to the brain for interpretation. What good is the nerve without the organ it serves? What good is the organ without the nerve that serves it?

Ah, Behe’s irreducible complexity! Here’s a tip for you. The eye is no longer irreducibly complex, and hasn’t been for probably a decade now. Read up on it.

Furthermore, this is definitely classic Creationist quote-mining. Here’s the full quote for you in its proper context.

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.

Evolutionary scientists cannot even come to a consensus as to who our ancestors are. The more evidence they find, the bigger the gaps become.

Actually funny you brought that up. But it’s true in a funny sense. For each missing link we find, two more missing links appear. But it’s a fallacy, because by that logic, there is no relation between the numbers 1 and 2. Because for every number you show me between the two numbers, two MORE numerical gaps appear!

Scientists still rely on the premise that life come from a primordial soup of chemicals.. somehow.

Sure, because it does not rely on an unfalsifable God, and has supporting evidence, and even if disproven, would not disprove the theory of evolution.

The standard acceptable limits of statistical probability for any scientific claim to go into the realm of impossibility is 10 to the 50th power. That is the equivalent of 1 in a 100,000 billion, billion, billion, billion, billion chance.

They’re going to have to whittle it down quite a bit more to even get close to the ‘acceptable’ levels of possibility.

Aside from pulling the numbers out of thin air, these numbers are essentially meaningless. Let me demonstrate. The probability that you were born from the sperm and egg that made you was 1 in 12 trillion sperm your father will create and 1 in 2 million eggs your mother was born with. The probability of YOU specifically being born is 1 in 2.4 * 10^18th power (any other combination would still yield a child to your parents, it would just be someone else, someone that was never born). Yet here you are. The probability of me being born was the same. The probability of BOTH of us being born out of the sperm and egg that created the two of us is the two numbers multiplied together, or 1 in 5.76 * 10^36th power. And then do it for every single person on this planet, and all their ancestors. We’re not talking about your 1 in 10^50th here anymore. This is for all intents and purposes, essentially 1 in infinity. And this is from just talking about sperm and egg combinations here, and ignoring all the variables in our ancestors’ lives (if you parents never met, you wouldn’t be born). Yet, I don’t find you so incredulous about the existence of every human on this planet.

Anyway, like I said, this is getting too unwieldy for the comment section of a blog post. And so this will probably be my last comment here. If you want to continue, find me on that forum I mentioned at the beginning, christianforums.com. Let me know if you do come (and what name you’re posting under), so I know to look out for you.

You said, “I am talking about speciation. Look up the recent Pod Mrcaru lizards.” You DID say that. So, I did, and found this statement in an article about them…

“DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste.”

Genetically identical. No change in genetics. No ’speciation’… only adaptation to a new environment. Even with the addition of cecal valves. They noted the correlation between the appearance of the cecal valves and the presence of nematodes in the gut. It is not beyond belief that the coding for such a thing was already in their DNA and that the new dietary change turned on the coding in their DNA. It is also possible that they once had cecal valves in the past and just lost the need for them after their diet changed for a period of time to a meatier fare… and now visa versa. If they reintroduced each population to each other they would more than likely still reproduce with each other. If some of the new lizards were taken back to the original island, would they survive? Perhaps – since they still have insects as part of their diet.

Speciation is biological evolution that gives rise to a new species… I understand that. Most people understand it as hybridization, which is one form of speciation and the most well known. So when you use a word such as speciation, many laymen think you are talking about (let’s say) a pseudo chimera-type jump or something like that. Not everyone has a deeper knowledge of scientific terms nor would they need to unless they were in the scientific field or were just obsessed with all things scientific.

Scientific methodology – doesn’t that start with a question? I understand quite well what the scientific method is (as I am not stupid) and understand there are steps that one takes in order to prove or disprove a hypothesis. You say if something is unfalsifiable then it is not science…

Really? Seriously?

Because one cannot truly know how life started on earth, since no one was there to observe it. You can’t test it in the lab, since the exact conditions are unknown. No one truly knows the exact time period between the creation of the universe and the placement of life on earth. Yet people use science all the time to try and determine these things… but will they ever actually know? Can these things ever be known? If not does that mean their hypothesis is unfalsifiable, since they can only falsify known information? Can we take seriously Dawkins statement (on film) that it is more plausible for aliens to have planted life on earth than for God to have created life? What aliens? Does that mean Dawkins isn’t using science to form his conclusions? (And more, does it disqualify him from practicing science in his field? Because as far as I know there are no aliens out there… there is no evidence to show the presence of aliens. I think there might have been an article somewhere if they had found aliens… But Dawkins basically states that it is possible that aliens planted life here. Of course, maybe he should consider working with the area-51 conspiracy theorists to prove that the government is covering up the existence of aliens. That would solve everything.)

Evolutionists defend their belief in spontaneous creation of life on earth from chemicals – this is pure speculation (unobservable) and it is based on philosophy… since it is not “falsifiable”. There is no way to know unless you were there.

Yet, many evolutionary scientists see this as the very foundation of their research. They work under the assumption of life coming from time and chance.

If what the schools want to teach is pure science, then they do not need to teach anything that is based on philosophy or religion. I can agree to that. However, since the Theory of Evolution is rooted in a ’scientific’ discipline which is based on the idea that there is no God and that life came from nothing by chance and developed over a nonspecified period of time (multiple millions of years) then perhaps they just need to take the Theory itself out of science class and place the study into a special scientific philosophy wing at school. Pure “observable, testable” science can stay in the main classroom areas.

You said, “You cannot just poke holes in a theory and think it will go away. If there is nothing better that can replace it, it will still be the best we have, and thus will remain the dominant theory…”

Especially when they bully theorists who have differing philosophical worldviews and force anyone studying to become a scientist to adhere to their humanistic philosophy, or else be out on their ear.

Kind of like the Roman Catholic Church once did to Galileo when he tried to prove the earth revolved around the sun.
He was considered a heretic and forced to recant his position.

Like then, the evolutionists have taken over the position of “Pope” to the church of science. It is a religious position in that they will tolerate NO dissent and NO views which may refute their assertion that life came from nothing and evolved into computer techies and movie critics. To the evolutionists, it is a sin against science to even suggest the presence of anything other than pure chance in the process of life.

This is what this whole debate is about. Academic freedom. We are not arguing that evolutionists should be forced out, but that scientists who have other philosophical viewpoints should be allowed to practice as well. If their science is faulty, people will know soon enough. One’s philosophical viewpoint should not keep one out of the career they love and excel in. And this is exactly what has happened. It is pure philosophical discrimination.

The atheists featured in the Expelled film, Dawkins, Harris, Meyer, etc, that are attacking people of faith by calling them names or questioning their credibility is an attempt at creating intolerance for people of other philosophical viewpoints. These men (and women – let’s not forget the Eugenie’s out there) are creating a prejudice against anyone who does not hold to a particular philosophy – humanism – and attempting to cut people of faith out of a particular field of study by insinuating their philosophy disqualifies them for it.

To “disqualify” a person in this way is purely political in nature and done in order to remain the only candidates for public funding (and perhaps in order to maintain a more prestigious place in the public eye – rooted on pride.)

Is there not room for more than one philosophical theory of the origins of life? Creationists and IDers are not afraid of the word “evolution”. It just means change. However, we do dispute the philosophy of humanism that maintains God had nothing to do with any of it. We believe that a scientists should be able to voice his views on faith (even within his science) without having to fear ridicule or loosing their jobs because of their worldview. A Christian can do an experiment just as well as the next person.

Did you know that valid research in science has had to be shelved simply because a scientist mentioned design or God? Valid scientific research where the scientists belief system did not effect the outcome. One scientist estimated anywhere between 10-15% of the valid research that was done in his field was shelved because the research implied design. (I’d have to look up the interview to get the exact statement, but that is about the amount I remember). The implications did not, however, effect the results in the least. How much of that research could be used to find cures or make new discoveries that would help further the study of science? No one will ever know – how sad is that?

The philosophy of evolution did not originate with Darwin – he just gave it an observable mechanism – natural selection. This is not what we are even debating – that animals and plants adapt according to their habitat and other factors which may over time change their physical attributes within specified parameters (DNA coding allowances) – however, what we ARE disputing is the assertion that evolutionist (or more properly Darwinist) scientists make that life happened by chance and there is no other way.

But that part of their theory is not testable. Therefore, it does not fall within the parameters of testable science – and is not science. It is philosophy and should be taught as such.

There is also the problem of DNA – how did DNA come into existence? If life happened by chance, where did the life-specific coding come from? Coding for a cell wall? Coding for movement? Coding for sexual reproduction of two different sexes? How did the coding develop into such a well regulated, self-contained system (machine) within each individual cell? All out of a chemical soup which contained no life whatsoever?

“We now know that the DNA molecule is an intricate
message system. To claim that DNA arose by random
material forces is to say that information can arise by
random material forces. Many scientists argue that the
chemical building blocks of the DNA molecule can be
explained by natural evolutionary processes. However,
they must realize that the material base of a message is
completely independent of the information transmitted.
Thus, the chemical building blocks have nothing to do
with the origin of the complex message. As a simple
illustration, the information content of the clause ‘nature
was designed’ has nothing to do with the writing material
used, whether ink, paint, chalk or crayon.”

http://www.AllAboutScience.org/DNA-double-helix.htm

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum, wrote a book for the British Museum of Natural History called “Evolution”. He was asked why he did not include photos or illustrations of transitional fossils in the book, and here is his response:

“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct
illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book.
If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have
included them. You suggest that an artist should be
used to visualize such transformations, but where
would he get the information from? I could not,
honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic
license, would that not mislead the reader? I wrote
the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it
now, I think the book would be rather different.
Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of
Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of
genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the
American Museum people are hard to contradict
when they say there are no transitional fossils. As
a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with
the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms
in the fossil record. You say that I should at least
“show a photo of the fossil from which each type of
organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line –
there is not one such fossil for which one could
make a watertight argument.”

So according to this statement, a well respected scientist employed by one of the most prestigious scientific institutions in the world says that even he does not have evidence of transitional fossil forms proving evolution (or as he more properly calls it ‘Gradualism’) to be fact.

Evolution by natural selection (‘Gradualism’) depends on short, slow changes in an organism changing into a more advanced organism from a simple one. It does not work in large leaps. Darwin himself conceded that, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

But when scientific evidence appears which demonstrates complex organs in existence that could not have developed little by little, but must have developed all at once to even be functional, humanist evos begin to convulse and scream, “You can’t say GOD did that! There is NO GOD!”

What DIFFERENCE does it make whether the scientist says they believe an intelligent designer did it, or God, or no one did it? That should NOT determine whether a person is qualified to be a scientist or practice in their desired field. And THAT is what the debate is all about. Academic freedom to be able to express philosophical views without fear of reprisals. If the science they practice is testable and experiments can be done in the lab, a scientist should be able to shout to the rafters “Praise the Lord! He helped me find a cure for cancer! Wooo-hooo!” and not have his research trashed because of his statement of faith in a sovereign and active Creator God who involves himself in the affairs of men.

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable

contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances,

for admitting different amounts of light, and for the

correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have

been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess,

absurd in the highest degree.” Charles Darwin

Not to mention the optic nerve needed for the brain to interpret the signals gathered by the eye. Or the eyelid (or lack thereof) and the tear ducts or a second lid for aquatic animals
and Eyelashes.

The ear, with all the little specialized bones which make it function. The aural nerve which carries the signals to the brain for interpretation. What good is the nerve without the organ it serves? What good is the organ without the nerve that serves it?

Evolutionary scientists cannot even come to a consensus as to who our ancestors are. The more evidence they find, the bigger the gaps become.

Scientists still rely on the premise that life come from a primordial soup of chemicals.. somehow.

The standard acceptable limits of statistical probability for any scientific claim to go into the realm of impossibility is 10 to the 50th power. That is the equivalent of 1 in a 100,000 billion, billion, billion, billion, billion chance.

Yet, with odds of life anywhere from 10 to the 40,000th power chance set by Sir Fred Hoyle to 10 to the 100,000,000,000th power chance set by Harold Morowitz of Yale, scientists still insist the life MUST have originated in those primordial pools of chemicals.

They’re going to have to whittle it down quite a bit more to even get close to the ‘acceptable’ levels of possibility.

I am certainly not talking about hybridization (why do you even think I’m talking about that?). I am talking about speciation. Look up the recent Pod Mrcaru lizards. Heck, just look up observed speciations.

You claim it’s scientifically impossible. Show me why all the examples showing it is possible didn’t happen.

And I seriously find it hilarious when Creationists ask for examples like Dog/Cats or your Dog/Sheep. The fact that you’re asking us for it shows how little you understand about evolution. A true chimera like that occurring in nature would disprove evolution! Seriously, it just boggles my mind when people ask for stuff like that, especially if they also claim they understand evolution.

Laboratory. Your usage of “fruit flies” as if they were a species further shows how little you understand about biology in general. Fruit flies are a taxonomic family! Not a species.

Good thing you understand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. Unfortunately that difference somehow hasn’t sunk in yet. And what is it with trying to squeeze God in tiny Gaps?

You also asked me by what standard do I judge whether someone is a Christian or not. Really? Where did I ask you this? Please show me. Are you imagining things? You claim you use God for everything. I am sure you do not use medicine then, and probably rely on faith healing then? If not, why this hypocrisy?

Intelligent Design rejects the scientific theory of evolution. Hence it rejects science. Modern evolutionary theory does not say anything about God. Nothing in science can. Stating a false dichotomy as true does not make it true and again shows your lack of understanding about science in general. There is a difference between realizing that you cannot test the supernatural, but attributing the natural to God, and claiming that God is behind everything we can’t explain. The second one reduces God to an impotent God of the Gaps. That is what you, Creationism, and Intelligent Design does. That is the difference between Theistic Evolution and Creationism. Theistic Evolution attributes everything we discover in science to God, instead of squeezing Him into ever-shrinking gaps.

Actually no, evolutionists do not necessarily believe that life occurred by chance alone. Read up on it some more, and then come back and explain yourself why it doesn’t. These strawmen of yours are tiring. If abiogenesis is “disproved” what is the falsifiable theory that has replaced it that explains it better than abiogenesis can?

There’s basically 2 things Creationists fail to understand.
1) You cannot just poke holes in a theory and think it will go away. If there is nothing better that can replace it, it will still be the best we have, and thus will remain the dominant theory
2) If your theory involves the supernatural (God), it is by definition, unfalsifiable (do you truly believe you can falsify God? If not, then you understand what I mean). If it’s unfalsifiable, it is not science. If you don’t understand that, please read up on the philosophy of science and the scientific methodology.

And I didn’t get my information from Answers in Genesis… they came from my secular science books and my own brain… I am perfectly aware that there are natural elements and I am also aware that natural elements do not just ‘poof’ into existence out of nothing. It’s scientifically impossible… but entirely possible with a sovereign creator. Matter does not come from nothing.

You claim there are examples of all the items I cited in my statement. Please cite those examples. And I am not disputing examples of what you may think of as ’speciation’ – which is to the layman more properly called hybridization. You cannot claim that hybridization and transitional forms are the same – hybrids of flowers (which can occur in the wild, but rarely) are still extremely similar to their parent flowers and not some other strange type of plant that never existed before.

Also, most cases (although not all) of hybridization in animals (such as the infamous liger made famous by my high school alter ego, Napolean Dynamite) have produced sterile offspring and generally do not occur in nature due to the fact that most lions and tigers exist in vastly different habitats.

Even so, they are still cats. There are NO instances where animals of different species can mate and produce, let’s say, a Dog/Sheep (Shog or Dheep) although opportunity to do so is constantly available due to humans domesticating both and causing them to live together. There is one instance of a female mule (mules are normally sterile) giving birth… guess what she gave birth to? Another mule. Albeit less of a mule than she, since there were only horses and donkeys in the pen with her. So that new animal will more likely be fertile, but the mule gene will eventually be inconsequential to the genetics of the lineage. See, when you get a new hybrid, you must isolate it with other hybrids of it’s kind or the hybrid’s offspring will eventually become more like the parent plant or animal if the hybrid is indeed fertile. And in the wild, while isolation is possible, it is not likely.

Now in the laboratory you can see many examples of point mutations – such as fruit flies in the laboratory – but no matter what you do to the fruit flies to try and get something other than a fruit fly, you will always get fruit flies. You can try to breed out the presence of any feature of the fruit fly by selectively picking parents with missing wings, lighter body colors, variations in other areas, but the result will always be some form of fruit fly. It doesn’t produce an insect that hates his veggies and would much rather go hunting for wilder game.

For cells to duplicate, there must be a mechanism which give it the instruction HOW to replicate… DNA. DNA does not occur EVER outside of the prior existence of a cell. Has Talkorigins ever cited evidence of replicatable DNA just ‘poofing’ out of a pot of chemicals in the lab? For DNA to appear, it must come from DNA. Abiogenesis does not happen. Life must come from life.

You also asked me by what standard do I judge whether someone is a Christian or not. I judge this by the Word of God… There is more to the Bible than just Romans 14. And the Bible is more than just a book that contains opinions. There are absolutes of faith without which one cannot claim to be of the faith. One cannot be of the Christian faith and claim a contradictory belief system to also be true. A Christian seeks to follow the example of Christ, who was obedient to God. A Christian does not try to keep God out of any subject but considers God in every area of life.

Intelligent Design theory rejects science? How so? Modern evolutionary theory rejects God. If evolutionary theory is the only accepted scientific principle accepted, then theistic evolution is also rejected by true modern evolutionists.

Theistic evolution is simply someone injecting God into evolutionary theory. But evolutionists believe that life must have occurred by chance alone – spontaneous generation. Abiogenesis is a theory, yes, but a disproved one. We shelve it with the other disproved theories, such as the Aristotlian theory of a geocentric universe and the theory that African peoples are less intelligent than Europeans (as Professor James Watson seems to believe).