Answers to athiest's dum disputes

I teach biology for a living and this is the weakest argument people use for macroevolution. This along with peppered moths. All things have genetic variation. Just liked humans. We all have slight variations that make us different. If you came up with some poison which killed all the people who have allergies then only people without allergies would survive. It's a variation which already exists. What has always baffled me is how you then say this is proof that all things evolved from an earlier organism. That is a huge jump to make. If you really want to show something show me a bacteria evolving into a protist. or a protist evolving into a simple animal, plant or fungus. I'll even take an invertebrate evolving into a vertebrate. While you are at it I would like to see any evidence of an organism increasing in complexity. That would be great.Sorry this is off the topic.

I still have a lot of questions that I don't know the answer to but my feeling is that all living things were created with genetic variation built in to our DNA. According to the Bible all things were created and it was all very good. Now after the fall of man and sin entered the world things were allowed to deteriorate. And we know there are a variety of things which cause mutations in genes.I also think the Bible allows for microevolution. It says in Genesis that things will "reproduce after their kind". My personal belief is that all dogs came from a common dog ansestor, all cats from a common cat and so on. This would certainly make the ark story more plausable.Some things I have questions about are the radiometric dating of materials. I don't know how to reconcile that with the Earth being 6 to 10,000 years old. I have always guessed that the Bible is just the record of the creation of earth with humans. It does say that "in the begining the earth was formless and without void" That sounds to me like it was here already. I think their is room for something to have been here before creation as it is written in Genesis. Obviously if God has always been in existance He must have done things prior to us.Well those are just a few thoughts

they obviously had to come from a common spider ancestor. What is the reason they can't interbreed? Is it chromosomal differences or an unwilling to breed? In a test tube you may be able to breed a cat and a lion but I highly doubt in nature that the two would breed. That doesn't mean they didn't come from a common cat ancestor. Just think of the mechanical difficulties of breeding a great Dane with a Chihuahua.

Insects lay eggs which can survive harsh conditions. Many of them (crickets) lay eggs in the ground which would certainly be able to survive a flood. So obviously it would be possible to destroy all living things, but repopulate the land with the eggs which would then hatch out. Spiders lay eggs in cocoons which would still be able to survive a flood. If it couldn’t then we would expect to find no spiders in places where there are local floods. Therefore Noah probably didn’t take spiders on the ark, at least not intentionally, but we know how insects tend to hitch rides on things. It wouldn’t matter if the eggs hatched out. They wouldn’t have to start from those two. The Bible talks about the Earth being divided after the flood (continental drift). So obviously the writers knew that the Earth was once one continent and later we had the continental drift. I think this speaks again of the accuracy of the Bible [edited to fix quote format] AdminBrian[This message has been edited by AdminBrian, 04-15-2004]

Insects lay eggs which can survive harsh conditions. Many of them (crickets) lay eggs in the ground which would certainly be able to survive a flood. So obviously it would be possible to destroy all living things, but repopulate the land with the eggs which would then hatch out. Spiders lay eggs in cocoons which would still be able to survive a flood. If it couldn’t then we would expect to find no spiders in places where there are local floods. Therefore Noah probably didn’t take spiders on the ark, at least not intentionally, but we know how insects tend to hitch rides on things. It wouldn’t matter if the eggs hatched out. They wouldn’t have to start from those two. The Bible talks about the Earth being divided after the flood (continental drift). So obviously the writers knew that the Earth was once one continent and later we had the continental drift. I think this speaks again of the accuracy of the Bible [This message has been edited by keith63, 04-15-2004]

Microevolution is when things change over time. For instance, take a small dog from a litter and breed it to another small dog and continue over time and you get a smaller breed of dog than the original.Or take the often used peppered moths. There are two types of peppered moths. When conditions change then one has a survival advantage and the dark color becomes more dominant.How about Darwin’s finches. When conditions change (drought) then those with a thicker beak become more dominant. What the studies don’t tell you is that when conditions return to normal, so does the beak size!! This part of the story always conveniently gets left out.Antibiotic resistant bacteria. When antibiotics are introduced. Those who have resistance survive and the population changes to become resistant.All these are examples of MICROEVOLUTION. No where do we see bacteria turning into a protist.Macroevolution involves an increase in complexity. I would like to see evidence of a mutation which has caused an increase in complexity. The bacterial resistance is a mutation which caused a loss of complexity. Here’s the challenge. Show me an example of an organism which had a mutation which caused an increase in their complexity as required by TOE.This sounds like it should be the beginning of another thread.

Don't recall saying the word "scoot"