You don't understand.

When too many changes accumulate over the generations and two tribes of one species are close to becoming two species, angels intervene and forbid the animals to procreate, hence the species barrier is never broken.

Note that Creationist use the word "species" to refer to mean "different-looking animals". That's not what the word "species" means in biology, but that's OK because Creationists only use scientific terms; they do not understand them.

IN REALITY now, what happens is that when you take two populations A and B of animal species X and let them evolve independently, populations A and B will eventually be unable to interbreed and will have become to species Y and Z. This can be observed in nature and in labs. The claim that something will stop them from becoming two species is a Creationist lie.

Two species evolving independently (and they always do, because that's what "species" means) will eventually take different evolutionary paths and their descendants will eventually look quite differently from the ancestors. Again, there is NOTHING to prevent such changes from accumulating. And Creationists have never explained what exactly it is they believe happens to stop evolution from changing animals too much.

Either way, it always astounds me that the "Christian Principle of Honesty" of which we have heard here so much never seems to stop Creationists from lying about evolution, no matter how often they are told about them.

Whenever I read the terms "random chance", "macro-evolution", and "species" (in the sense of "different-looking animal" rather than "animal that cannot interbreed with another animal) I know I am confronted with lies.

So there are two reasons Creationism should be taught in science class. It's not science, and it's not religion. (If it were religion, why does it encourage lying?)

Whew!  I thought I was going to have to carry the guilt of that blackguard around with me for the rest of my life.

Lula, you are still evading the subject. None of what you write is relevant because you simply don't understand evolution and you refuse to learn.

As long as you don't understand that Darwinism is not about "macro-evolution" and "random chance" and that there simply is no definite border between species that could possibly, through any mechanism, halt evolution before it creates a new species, everything you say will remain pure nonsense.

Once I meet a Creationist who knows as much about evolution as I know about Abrahamic religions, I will listen carefully. But until then my own research into both fields effectively stops me from listening to statements I know to be lies (like anything about "random chance" and "macro-evolution") and consider them as arguments.

If you cannot be bothered to learn Darwinist theory, I cannot be bothered to take seriously what you have to say against it.

You don't even know how ridiculous you sound to anybody who knows anything about Darwin's theory.

I'll tell you again, and I hope that you listen, in the interest of promoting Creationism if not in the interest of convincing you of the validity of scientific theory:

1. Darwin's theory is NOT about random chance events.

2. The theory of evolution does NOT include what you call "macro-evolution" and never has. "Macro-evolution" is not a type of change but an overview. Evolution according to Darwin consists ONLY of small changes (i.e. "micro-evolution"). You can simply forget about the two terms "micro" and "macro", because the difference you see between them has absolutely nothing to do with Darwinism.

3. There is NO definitive border between two species. Not only is there no mechanism for changes to stop before a new species is created, but there isn't even a border between species that could possibly trigger or even define a goal for such a mechanism.

Any statement or claim you make about evolution that uses any of the three lies Creationists constantly use is completely meaningless in the context of discussing evolution. Whatever merits Creationism has must be compared against scientific theory, NOT against your understand of science or the lies Creationists tell about it.

Let me make it perfectly clear, so you cannot wiggle out again:

Claiming that evolution is about random chance is a lie. Claiming that evolution knows micro-evolution and macro-evolution as two types of change is a lie. And claiming that there is a border between species that cannot be crossed is a lie (because there is no such border according to the theory of evolution).

If you tell any of these lies, you are not only making it obvious that Creationists are liars (hence harming your cause), but you are also violating the laws of your religion (hence harming yourself).

Again:

1. Evolution is _NOT_ about random chance.

2. There is _NO_ such thing as "macro-evolution" in Darwin's theory.

3. There is _NO_ border between species (and it is therefor logically impossible for evolution to stop before it crosses that border).

You have been told these things again and again. And I don't care if you tell me that you don't believe in them. Darwinists do and their world view contains those three principles. So if you want to disprove or discredit their world view you better address those points instead of lying about them.

Darwinism:

1. NOT about random chance.

2. NO macro-evolution.

3. NO border between species.

Get that into your head.

leauki posts:

Again:

1. Evolution is _NOT_ about random chance.

2. There is _NO_ such thing as "macro-evolution" in Darwin's theory.

3. There is _NO_ border between species (and it is therefor logically impossible for evolution to stop before it crosses that border).

You have been told these things again and again. And I don't care if you tell me that you don't believe in them. Darwinists do and their world view contains those three principles. So if you want to disprove or discredit their world view you better address those points instead of lying about them.

Darwinism:

1. NOT about random chance.

2. NO macro-evolution.

3. NO border between species.

Get that into your head.

Leauki,

Obviously you won't take my word for the definition of macro-evolution or Darwin's Evolution theory....so I googled Darwin's theory of evolution....and this is part of the first selection....  

You are here: Science >> Darwin's Theory Of Evolution

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).

Creationists believe all human life is related and has descended from a common ancestor...those being Adam and Eve. Humans are not related biologically or any other way, shpae or form to birds, bananas, fish or flowers or apes for that matter.

From these discussions,  I understand better now why Darwinists claim they are related to bananas and evolved from ape-like pre-humans which themselves had "evolved" from a simple cell billions of years earlier, but I and my family were created by God.

Since no one, ever since Evolution Theory came into play as a worldview, has ever seen Darwin's Evolution take place and cannot come up with proof of the missing links, I am unwilling to disbelieve the Torah account of Creation in Genesis or the teachings of the Catholic Chruch on this matter.

There is absolutely no proof that you are related to bananas or descended from ape-like sub-human, pre-human or proto-humans, but you are free to exercise your fancy. Good day.

Since no one, ever since the dawn of time, has ever seen or proven a God created the species and cannot come up with such proof, I am unwilling to believe the Torah account of Creation in Genesis or the teachings of the Catholic Church on this (or any other!) matter.

Lula -

With all respect, this is irrational and a lie.  It exposes your lack of understanding of the nature of science.  Genome analysis and the simple observations of embryology are powerful evidence of the theory of evolution through natural selection, to mention only two.  Nothing about evolution, however, precludes a God or other divine being by some other name and there is no 'evidence' that religion and evolution theory are mutually exclusive.  This issue has been beaten to death so many times, I won't revisit it at length here or in future replies.  It certainly has nothing to do with the topic of this article anyway.

hey Bud, you really really need to take off those very dirty sunglasses when you watch TV next time.  You're way off on this one this time.

  exactly right D. 

OT, I know, but didn't he sing at BO's Invesco coronation?  Kind of ironic.

You're going to make me hug you...even if we disagree over politics.

Believing in something when the evidence says otherwise is not faith, it's delusion.  You can choose not to believe in gravity (Or the Devil's Magnet as you might call it) but that doesn't change the reality of it.

~Zoo

  Oh Zoo, that is priceless!!  Glad to see I'm not the only one tired of Lula's lack of understanding of evolutionary theory.  There is science, and then there are those transparent replies that indicate extreme religious bias and a desperate attempt to circle back to the Bible.

Wow, I guess I missed the boat on that evidence...  Hmm, all those dinosaurs must have missed it too

As a bible believing Christian and a studier of the bible for over 30 years now reading it almost daily, I can absolutely say without a shadow of a doubt that much of what you said here is false.  In order for me to prove it to you would be to quote scripture which I could do easily enough but wish not to turn this into a biblical debate.  Let's just suffice it to say, you are NOT an expert on scripture.

like you have?  Is this the kettle calling the pot black? 

This is typically how creationists think:

Oh...and by the way, that is a real quote...

"I wasn't here 2 million years ago," Fanti said. "If evolution is so slow, why don't we see anything evolving now?"

Not from that pleasant fellow in the picture, but from some jackass on a school board pushing for its teaching.  I have doubts it'll happen, creationism is solely religion based and that's a big no-no...thank God. (heh, heh)

~Zoo 

Widely accepted scientific views are anything but subjective.  When you interpret data and evidence in science, there's only one right way to do it....it's not like in literature where there are infinite possibilities.

Evolution is not an origin story...it's a process of development.

You can be Christian and be a scientist.  I don't see why that's not possible.  However, to ignore the piles and piles of evidence for something(see: evolution, 4.54 billion year old earth) in favor of belief is not being honest to the field...frankly, it's being delusional.

Religion and science are pretty much polar opposites.  Where one has faith with little to no evidence, the other has faith because of evidence.

Religion can answer the why where science cannot.  It gives you a feeling of purpose and a sense of importance in the world.

Science can answer the how where religion cannot.  It shows you how the world works in a consistent and organized way.

But you cannot honestly tell me that a person who says this:

"I wasn't here 2 million years ago," Fanti said. "If evolution is so slow, why don't we see anything evolving now?" (bolding and italics are mine)

Knows anything about science at all...or how to properly dress themselves without help.

~Zoo