Harrie,

Quote: › that the first scientists were Christians.

The sciences as we know them now.

Quote: › Do you mean that the scientists of today are scoffers?

In the mainstream field of science in general they are.

Quote: › In response skeptics try to make theist understand that this does not mean that therefore there really must be a God.

But to deny the existence of God altogether????

That is not being honest.

Quote: › it diminishes the amount of animals to about 2 million species or at least 4 million animals

Bet it is way less than that.Try this site.

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html

Quote: › but in your case adding the dinosaurs with animals as tall as 140 feet, weighing about 200 tons for the biggest guys.

Can't take younger smaller ones??

Quote: › a horse and a donkey

Unclean animals. Four total. Take young ones. Yearlings. There you go.

Quote: › Why would God create animals like that? For what purpose?

Ever see a mule pull a wagon?

Quote: › you would need evolution to do that,

You would need natural selection, not evolution. A dog is a dog. It can only stay a dog.

Quote: › Most ruminants today can’t interbreed anymore.

Actually they can. Read the wiki.

Quote: › why did God needed Noah anyway?

He didn't. Noah found favor in the sight of the Lord. God needs nothing.

Quote: › Could you please explain? Perhaps an example would do?

All other religions rely on the follower to go to God, to get "right" with God. In Christianity, God gave us the way to get "right" with Him. He provided reconciliation.

2 Corinthians 5:16-19

16So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. 17Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

I don't have to rely on following a dogma to get right with or be accepted by God. Jesus did that for me.

Rerun,

Quote: › “In the mainstream field of science in general they (scientists) are. (scoffers)”

Why, do you think? They are right with their noses in God’s nature, dissecting every single detail, yet they can’t see God? Should not all facts point undeniable to God?

Quote: › “But to deny the existence of God altogether???? That is not being honest. “

I think the existence of God is just as likely as the existence of my magical Garden Gnomes. The fact that you can’t prove they do not exist does not mean a thing. The number of objects you can not disprove is infinite!
Science is a method to prevent taking things into account that you can’t detect and therefore not disprove, so you would not get lost in a world of unlikely possibilities, obscuring all the rest.

Quote: › “Bet it is way less than that.Try this site.”

A theist site...

Scientists claim there are at least 2 million species. They do not make this up to disprove the Biblical flood, they probably don’t even care about that. What you are saying is that this Bible study site proves scientists are wrong in estimating the amount of species?

Yes, you could take younger dinosaurs with you, you would still need a separate donkey and a separate horse as they do not interbreed to populate the earth, and a mule can indeed pull a wagon put so can a donkey or a horse and even an ox.
The question remains why God lets a donkey and a horse interbreed but makes their offspring sterile? Why not let them interbreed in the first place?

You say that a horse and a donkey are unclean animals, but didn't Jesus ride on a donkey?

Quote: › “You would need natural selection, not evolution. A dog is a dog. It can only stay a dog.”

You agree that a dog can change in appearance, and indeed, I agree, that you could have created all dogs from a single type animal, a common ancestor, although you would need time to create the changes between the races.

Where to me the crucial point is, is when two kind of animals can’t interbreed any longer.
And in fact NOT all canine types CAN interbreed, as you use wiki, you might accept it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canid_hybrid

You can NOT cross a fox with a dingo or a coyote. While you still can cross a dingo or coyote with a dog, and a fox with a dog. So this shows that dingo’s coyotes, dogs and foxes are all related, but can’t all interbreed just like that.
It seems like dogs are in between foxes at one side and dingos/coyotes at the other?

Then there is a significant difference in size between certain dogs so they might be able to interbreed, but can’t practically in nature as the mother would die. So they simply can’t interbreed any longer for such reasons: dead mothers do not cause offspring. And a tiny male would not be able to successfully mount a big female I think, without helping him a hand.
Ans sometimes certain animals could interbreed, but show no sexual interest in each other.

Apparently, a mule and a horse have arrived at fork in the road too; they can create offspring, but this offspring is sterile, so they can NOT interbreed any longer.

At that moment, you WILL have two different kind of animals, even when they share the same ancestors!

You can’t possibly deny that a horse and a donkey have the same ancestor, as they do manage to produce offspring, but you will have to admit that they can’t interbreed any longer as their offspring is sterile?
Why would God create animals that show variation, have the same ancestors, but reach a point where they can’t interbreed any longer?
Evolution explains this easily and backs it up with evidence.


And the same thing happened to us humans too, with our closest relatives the chimps, like it our not. They share more that 98% of our DNA, including much retro virus junk, but I suppose that will mean little to you.
I agree, the Genesis story is more appealing as it sets us aside as special, made in Gods image. But it isn’t so, we humans have a long, long line of ancestors back in time, changing our face and appearance gradually.

Quote: › “He didn't. Noah found favor in the sight of the Lord. God needs nothing.”

God obviously needed Noah to repopulate the earth with animals, didn’t he?
Or did he let Noah do that for Noahs pleasure? Would you like to take care of all those animals for a whole year?

If God needs nothing, why did He create us? If we didn’t exist we wouldn’t know?

Quote: › “All other religions rely on the follower to go to God, to get "right" with God. In Christianity, God gave us the way to get "right" with Him. He provided reconciliation.”

Theist A claims a piece of wood is 4” as that is 2” shorter than theist B claims it is.
Theist B claims a piece of wood is 6” as that is 2” longer than theist A claims it is.

Who is right?

Quote: › “I don't have to rely on following a dogma to get right with or be accepted by God. Jesus did that for me.”

Isn’t the dogma that you have to accept and belief in Christ?

If you have lived a good life, helping many people, but die without accepting Christ you will go to hell and burn forever.
If you have raped, plundered and killed, but accept Christ just before you die, you will end up in heaven.

Is that correct?

Harrie,

Quote: › Why, do you think?

Mankind hates God. He hates the concept of God. He hates the idea of God. Mankind HATES God.

Man deliberately rejects and forgets God.

Quote: › Should not all facts point undeniable to God?

They do. But again:

Romans 1:19-20

19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

2 Peter 3:3-6

3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.

Quote: › A theist site...

What should I do? Ask Dawkins for the answer? Ha!

Quote: › Scientists claim there are at least 2 million species.

So what? Different species didn't go on the Ark. Different kinds did.

Possibly as demonstrated on the wiki for dogs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canidae

Family Canidae would encompass all canines living today as well as extinct forms. And you know how fast breeds can form and breeds are classified as species.

An interesting note here, Jacob did his own selective breeding in Genesis 30. Artificial selection if you will. God did tell us about selection in His word. But as always, reject it. Call it bunk, or whatever. God does guide speciation in His own way.

Everything about nature is in the bible even if you don't believe it.

Quote: › They do not make this up to disprove the Biblical flood, they probably don’t even care about that.

They flat out reject it.

Quote: › What you are saying is that this Bible study site proves scientists are wrong in estimating the amount of species?

The amount that went on the ark. Not now since speciation has taken place since the flood.

Quote: › The question remains why God lets a donkey and a horse interbreed but makes their offspring sterile?

Why is this an issue? So what if they can't produced fertile offspring? Who really cares?

And, if evolution is true, then evolution is at fault. So then what?

Quote: › You say that a horse and a donkey are unclean animals, but didn't Jesus ride on a donkey?

Unclean to eat but not to ride. Again, why is that an issue?

Quote: › You agree that a dog can change in appearance, and indeed, I agree, that you could have created all dogs from a single type animal, a common ancestor, although you would need time to create the changes between the races.

But in a lot less time than you would prefer.

New dog breeds can be attained in a years worth of selective breeding. You don't need millions or thousands of years.

And why can't you let God select breed in the wild? Could He? Absolutely.

He did it for Jacob so he would have enough money to move away with Rachel.

Quote: › And in fact NOT all canine types CAN interbreed, as you use wiki, you might accept it:

And this proves that speciation looses information. Never gains it.

Quote: › Why would God create animals that show variation, have the same ancestors, but reach a point where they can’t interbreed any longer?

Again, a loss of information.

Quote: › Evolution explains this easily and backs it up with evidence.

Not what I hear.

Quote: › including much retro virus junk, but I suppose that will mean little to you.

Are ERV's junk? Nator doesn't seem to think so.

Quote: › But it isn’t so, we humans have a long, long line of ancestors back in time, changing our face and appearance gradually.

Bull. There is nothing that shows a gradual change. Only variation.

I know you loath AnswersinGenesis, but read this.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/faster-than-speeding-bullet

Quote: › If God needs nothing, why did He create us? If we didn’t exist we wouldn’t know?

There is no religion that I know of that has this answer.

Some say they do, but there is no reason they are correct. It is only speculation.

I have my guesses, but that's all they are.

Quote: › Who is right?

Theist C, the Christian.

Quote: › If you have lived a good life, helping many people, but die without accepting Christ you will go to hell and burn forever. If you have raped, plundered and killed, but accept Christ just before you die, you will end up in heaven. Is that correct?

I cannot speak for God.

Quote: › Isn’t the dogma that you have to accept and belief in Christ?

Rules and laws, Harrie.

Quote: › “Mankind hates God. He hates the concept of God. He hates the idea of God. Mankind HATES God. Man deliberately rejects and forgets God.”

Of course not. Mankind seeks comfort, seeks answers, and religions provides all that, so many on earth do belief in some God. But not everybody is able to belief those answers, that’s all.
You, for example, do not belief the answers of all non-Christian religions.
I do not belief the answers of any religion at all. And some of those religions do not sound bad at all to me, so I definitely do not hate those, I just simply do not belief they are true.


I asked: “Should not all facts point undeniable to God?”

Quote: › “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

Do you realize you use the Bible to prove the Bible is right?

Quote: › “And you know how fast breeds can form and breeds are classified as species. An interesting note here, Jacob did his own selective breeding in Genesis 30. Artificial selection if you will.”

But you must realize that if you agree that there is something as ‘micro evolution’ that this automatically adds up to ‘macro’ evolution?
If you add up all those small changes, what will happen do you think?

Quote: › “God did tell us about selection in His word. But as always, reject it. Call it bunk, or whatever. God does guide speciation in His own way.”

Well, aren’t you afraid you might end up in the Catholic camp that beliefs in a God guided ‘macro’ evolution?


I asked: “What you are saying is that this Bible study site proves scientists are wrong in estimating the amount of species?”

Quote: › “The amount that went on the ark. Not now since speciation has taken place since the flood.”

If speciation could have taken place since the flood, it could have taken place before, don’t you agree, as such mechanisms should have been in place?

What I don’t understand is that you do not belief in evolution, as that would have taken too much time, time that wasn’t there as the earth is very young, but do belief in speciation after the flood in only a few thousand years?
What am I missing here?


I asked: “The question remains why God lets a donkey and a horse interbreed but makes their offspring sterile?”

Quote: › “Why is this an issue? So what if they can't produced fertile offspring? Who really cares?”

If there is no evolution, than this phenomena is a bit strange, don’t you think? Why would God let them interbreed, but only one generation?

Quote: › “And, if evolution is true, then evolution is at fault. So then what?”

In the case of the horse and the donkey you mean? No, it is evidence for evolution I think; a horse and a donkey are related as they are able to interbreed, but have grown too far apart to become one again as their offspring is sterile. They passed one of those branching off points.



I said: “You agree that a dog can change in appearance, and indeed, I agree, that you could have created all dogs from a single type animal, a common ancestor, although you would need time to create the changes between the races.”

Quote: › “But in a lot less time than you would prefer.”

If evolution would take less time, it would be even more evidence for evolution, wouldn’t you think? As it becomes even more plausible as time is less of an issue?

Quote: › “New dog breeds can be attained in a years worth of selective breeding. You don't need millions or thousands of years.”

That is correct, but evolution is not consciously aimed at breeding, it solely depends on the circumstances. If there is no serious chance in surrounding for a long time, there is no selective pressure for a long time.

Quote: › “And this proves that speciation looses information. Never gains it.”

Why do you think that? Do dogs change when breeding because they lose information you think?
It changes information. Sometimes it is indeed lost, but sometimes information is added.

Quote: › “Bull. There is nothing that shows a gradual change. Only variation.”

If you start breeding with wolves, do you think you will get a Great Dane and a poodle right away? Or would that take more gradual steps you think? Variation is what can cause tremendous changes when all added up.

What would prevent small variations, selection and change, from animals branching of and becoming very different after a time?

Harrie,

Quote: › Of course not.

Yes he does Harrie.

Quote: › Do you realize you use the Bible to prove the Bible is right?

Do you realize that you use science to prove science right?

Quote: › But you must realize that if you agree that there is something as ‘micro evolution’ that this automatically adds up to ‘macro’ evolution?

Absolutely not, Harrie.

Microevolution is variation within created kinds. Shown in the bible.

Macroevolution is one kind transforming into another. Not happening.

Quote: › If you add up all those small changes, what will happen do you think?

The mule. Loss of information that is so drastic, that it produces infertility, NOT another kind of animal completely unrelated to its ancestor.

Quote: › Well, aren’t you afraid you might end up in the Catholic camp that beliefs in a God guided ‘macro’ evolution?

Natural selection is not macroevolution.

According to most evolutionists, natural selection is the tool used by macroevolution. They are not the same at all.

Quote: › If speciation could have taken place since the flood, it could have taken place before, don’t you agree, as such mechanisms should have been in place?

It probably did.

Quote: › What am I missing here?

God guided the goats of Jacob to produce stripes in a short amount of time. He did the same with all the other animals.

Quote: › If there is no evolution, than this phenomena is a bit strange, don’t you think? Why would God let them interbreed, but only one generation?

I don't think it is strange.

Probably to produce the mule. A strong and resourceful animal.

Quote: › In the case of the horse and the donkey you mean? No, it is evidence for evolution I think; a horse and a donkey are related as they are able to interbreed, but have grown too far apart to become one again as their offspring is sterile. They passed one of those branching off points.

I might be inclined to think it would be part of God's design.

Quote: › If evolution would take less time, it would be even more evidence for evolution, wouldn’t you think?

But not evolution as you want to define it. Adaptation maybe. Not macroevolution.

But that would shatter all of the established ages for the fossil records and geological strata and might even concede to the short time span of many creationists. Yikes.

Quote: › As it becomes even more plausible as time is less of an issue?

Creationism sounds even more plausible now than macroevolution.

Quote: › If there is no serious chance in surrounding for a long time, there is no selective pressure for a long time.

Climate is not a serious chance for adaptation?

I live in the north of the lower 48 states. It gets very cold here.

I have had to work in the south many times. It doesn't take but a few weeks to adapt to the heat and vice versa.

A lot less time is required than you think, Harrie.

Quote: › Sometimes it is indeed lost, but sometimes information is added.

Show that, Harrie.

Quote: › If you start breeding with wolves, do you think you will get a Great Dane and a poodle right away?

I'll bet within 25 years. That's not a long time.

Quote: › What would prevent small variations, selection and change, from animals branching of and becoming very different after a time?

A gain of information that is not possible.

According to biophysicist Lee Spetner, “All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.”

Spetner is a non-creationist who shows that time and chance cannot produce new (more) genetic information.

Read "non-creationist".

Observations confirm that mutations overwhelmingly cause a loss of information, not a net gain, as evolution requires.

There have been a few arguable cases of information-gaining mutations, but for evolution to be true, there would need to be billions of them. The fact is, we don’t observe this in nature, but rather, we see the opposite—organisms losing information. Organisms are changing, but the change is in the wrong direction! How can losses of information add up to a gain?

Quote: › “Do you realize that you use science to prove science right?”

I hardly use scientific evidence here as I realize that means little to nothing to you. I concentrate on religious problems like the Bible and logic.


I asked: “If you add up all those small changes, what will happen do you think?”

Quote: › “The mule. Loss of information that is so drastic, that it produces infertility, NOT another kind of animal completely unrelated to its ancestor.”

There is no such animal that is completely unrelated to its ancestor. And if only loss of information is possible, how can dogs be able to breed but still be healthy and interbreed successfully within their sort?

Quote: › “According to most evolutionists, natural selection is the tool used by macroevolution. They are not the same at all.”

I just wonder where and when these small changes know when to stop to prevent an organism from differing too much from its ancestor?


I said: “If evolution would take less time, it would be even more evidence for evolution, wouldn’t you think?”

Quote: › “But not evolution as you want to define it. Adaptation maybe. Not macroevolution. But that would shatter all of the established ages for the fossil records and geological strata and might even concede to the short time span of many creationists. Yikes.”

Not at all. As I said before:” As it becomes even more plausible as time is less of an issue?”
We think that natural selection takes lots of time, and you could indeed shorten that with artificial selective pressure we use in breeding dogs.

Quote: › “Creationism sounds even more plausible now than macroevolution.”

And a being more complicated than the universe has always existed and did not need to be created nor to be evolved?

Quote: › “Climate is not a serious chance for adaptation?”

If it changes rather suddenly it is. But where does adaptation stop and evolution begin you think?

Quote: › “I have had to work in the south many times. It doesn't take but a few weeks to adapt to the heat and vice versa.”

Yep, animals get used to certain situations. But when those situations get more severe, some will die or have less of a chance to reproduce.

Quote: › “A lot less time is required than you think, Harrie.”

If you think less time is needed, than evolution will be even more probable?


I said: “Sometimes it is indeed lost, but sometimes information is added.”

Quote: › “Show that, Harrie.”

I don’t have any sources you would accept. We need to stick with logic on this one, as you don’t accept scientific evidence and I don’t accept Biblical evidence.

I said: “If you start breeding with wolves, do you think you will get a Great Dane and a poodle right away?”

Quote: › “I'll bet within 25 years. That's not a long time.”

Perhaps five dog generations? If you think that is possible, than evolution means nothing at all and is absolutely no problem!

Quote: › “Spetner is a non-creationist who shows that time and chance cannot produce new (more) genetic information.Read "non-creationist".

Ah, well, he must be right then...

Quote: › “Organisms are changing, but the change is in the wrong direction! How can losses of information add up to a gain?”

I doubt it that we will ever agree on this as we will not accept each other’s evidence.

Simply ask yourself how dogs can change from a wolf to a poodle, a great dane, or to a fox. And if those little changes are possible with selective breeding methods, which are of artificial selective nature, why these changes could not continue to produce, in time, a different animal that can’t interbreed with his close relatives any longer.

Harrie,

Quote: › I hardly use scientific evidence here as I realize that means little to nothing to you.

Don't feed me that line Harrie. You resort to science all of the time.

Quote: › There is no such animal that is completely unrelated to its ancestor.

According to your beliefs, the crocodile and duck are related by a common ancestor. Can they successfully breed?

Quote: › And if only loss of information is possible, how can dogs be able to breed but still be healthy and interbreed successfully within their sort?

Get a wolf from a dachshund then.

Quote: › I just wonder where and when these small changes know when to stop to prevent an organism from differing too much from its ancestor?

When they run out of information.

Quote: › We think that natural selection takes lots of time,

Compare the different breeds of bears to the different breeds of dogs.

Quote: › And a being more complicated than the universe has always existed and did not need to be created nor to be evolved?

Yep.

Quote: › If it changes rather suddenly it is.

That is what I said.

Quote: › But where does adaptation stop and evolution begin you think?

Adaptation is within created kinds. Evolution is across different phyla.

Quote: › But when those situations get more severe, some will die or have less of a chance to reproduce.

Or adapt accordingly. Whitetail deer are smaller in the south than the north. Heat escapes their bodies faster down south. How long did that take? Not very long by evolutionary standards.

Quote: › than evolution will be even more probable?

Not according to accepted evolutionary theory.

Quote: › I don’t have any sources you would accept.

If you can show it I have to accept it.

Quote: › Perhaps five dog generations?

That is 25 generations. A dog can reproduce within a year of being born.

Quote: › If you think that is possible, than evolution means nothing at all and is absolutely no problem!

That's right, to a creationist. That's why we don't believe it.

Quote: › Ah, well, he must be right then..

The point is, an atheist can believe that chance doesn't have to be taken into account to explain evolution. But that goes against commonly accepted evolutionary thinking. As your smugness demonstrates.

Quote: › a different animal that can’t interbreed with his close relatives any longer.

So, when will a mule turn into a completely different animal and cease to be able to reproduce with any type of equine?

Natural selection is not evolution.

From the wiki:

Quote: › In biology, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. Evolution has therefore been described as "descent with modification". Although the changes produced in a single generation are normally small, the accumulation of these differences over time can cause substantial changes in a population, causing the emergence of new species.[1] Similarities among species suggest that all known species are descended from a common ancestor through this process of gradual divergence.[2]

Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution but not evolution.

Quote: › “According to your beliefs, the crocodile and duck are related by a common ancestor. Can they successfully breed?”

Of course not, they grew too far apart, much further apart than for example a horse and a donkey.


Me: “And if only loss of information is possible, how can dogs be able to breed but still be healthy and interbreed successfully within their sort?”

Quote: › “Get a wolf from a dachshund then.”

I don’t know what you mean. A wolf and a dachshund are not that far apart, so they still might be able to interbreed.


Me: “I just wonder where and when these small changes know when to stop to prevent an organism from differing too much from its ancestor?”

Quote: › “When they run out of information.”

If all breeding is loss of information, shouldn’t you end up with cripple and insane dogs? While the wolf should be far superior to dogs as wolfs have their information all intact? Yet the average dog is still quite healthy, after all that loss of information?

Me: “But where does adaptation stop and evolution begin you think?”

Quote: › “Adaptation is within created kinds. Evolution is across different phyla.”

How does adaptation knows where to stop before becoming another animal?

Quote: › “How long did that take? Not very long by evolutionary standards.”

What is beyond me is why you think that if changes do not take a long time, that this would be an argument AGAINST evolution? As I said several times before, wouldn’t that make evolution even more plausible as it would take LESS time?

Quote: › “Not according to accepted evolutionary theory.”

That is as I said that evolution usually only encounters natural pressure, while man can provide artificial selective pressure and work much faster.

Me: “If you think that is possible, than evolution means nothing at all and is absolutely no problem!”

Quote: › “That's right, to a creationist. That's why we don't believe it.”

There must be some misunderstanding here. If evolution needs even less time, evolution itself should be even more plausible, don't you think?

Quote: › “The point is, an atheist can believe that chance doesn't have to be taken into account to explain evolution. But that goes against commonly accepted evolutionary thinking.”

I’m not sure that I understand what you mean?

Quote: › “So, when will a mule turn into a completely different animal and cease to be able to reproduce with any type of equine?”

A mule is not a specie on itself, but a cross between two closely related but different animals and is sterile. A horse and a donkey are two different animals that CAN reproduce. They once were one single animal, but have drifted apart after branched off.


May I ask why you think evolutionists have thought up this ‘fairy tale?’

Harrie,

Quote: › Of course not, they grew too far apart, much further apart than for example a horse and a donkey.

Then why say this?

Quote: › There is no such animal that is completely unrelated to its ancestor.

When I said this:

Quote: › Loss of information that is so drastic, that it produces infertility, NOT another kind of animal completely unrelated to its ancestor.”

If a duck and a croc are related, explain to me when and where they became unrelated.

Quote: › I don’t know what you mean.

Reverse evolve a wolf FROM a Dachshund.

It is impossible. Loss of information.

Quote: › If all breeding is loss of information, shouldn’t you end up with cripple and insane dogs?

From the wiki:

On average, Doberman Pinschers live about 10–14 years, and they frequently suffer from a number of health concerns. Common serious health problems include dilated cardiomyopathy,[25][26] cervical vertebral instability (CVI),[27] von Willebrand's disease (a bleeding disorder for which there is genetic testing)[25], and prostatic disease.[28] Less serious common health concerns include hypothyroidism and hip dysplasia.

This is just one breed.

Try the wolf wiki:

Diseases recorded to be carried by wolves include brucella, deerfly fever, leptospirosis, foot-and-mouth disease, and anthrax. Wolves are major hosts for rabies in Russia, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, and India.

Far less because it has not lost crucial information through mutation.

Quote: › While the wolf should be far superior to dogs as wolfs have their information all intact?

As you can see from the above.

Quote: › Yet the average dog is still quite healthy, after all that loss of information?

Not quite.

Dogs have many diseases to which they are susceptible.

Quote: › How does adaptation knows where to stop before becoming another animal?

What do you mean by "another" animal?

Because adapted animals are still the same animal.

All the different fruit flies are still fruit flies.

Quote: › that this would be an argument AGAINST evolution?

Evolution requires a long time for one kind of animal to become another. If it didn't, we would see mixes of animals, transitional, all over the place.

Adaptation requires a very short amount of time. That's why we can see different variations within the same animal.

Quote: › wouldn’t that make evolution even more plausible as it would take LESS time?

It would make it less for reasons stated above.

Quote: › That is as I said that evolution usually only encounters natural pressure,

That's why more time is needed.

Adaptation takes far less time and can be directed, indirectly, by man.

God did give us an example of selection. Did you read that passage in Genesis?

Quote: › If evolution needs even less time, evolution itself should be even more plausible, don't you think?

You are confusing adaptation with macroevolution.

Quote: › I’m not sure that I understand what you mean?

You don't have to be a bible thumper to think and know that evolution is a serious load of manure.

Quote: › A mule is not a specie on itself, but a cross between two closely related but different animals and is sterile.

Right.

It has lost the information needed for the male to reproduce successfully. It can never become a new specie unless scientists decide to just make it up.

Even when a mule does reproduce, and they can, rare though, the resulting offspring is almost always a genetically complete specimen determined by heritage. It is not a hybrid anymore.

Quote: › May I ask why you think evolutionists have thought up this ‘fairy tale?’

What fairy tale?

Rerun,

I will explain in my own words how evolution works, perhaps that might answer some questions. Not that you will ever consider evolution a fact as you will never be able to, but you might understand why there are people who do accept evolution.

Imagine this group of animals. None of those animals will be exactly the same, they will all show variation in many aspects: one is a bit shorter, the other one is faster, one will manage to store more fat, etc.
The environment is pleasant, so the group thrives and multiplies, spreading over a large area and splitting up into different groups, but all still the same animal.
But now something happens, it can be a multitude of problems, but let’s assume that it gets very cold. The animals that happen to have a thicker coat and can store more fat, now have a better chance of survival than the others. The will reproduce better than the rest, and change the average genetic code of that animal. So if you find a few of these animals from the cold period, you will notice that they were already among those animals during the warmer period. It is just that the average appearance of the group together has changed. You might cal that adaptation, I don’t really mind. But the group in itself will have changed a bit, and will now know variations around those newer averages.
The thing is, that another group might undergo different problems, they might encounter droughts, so they go another direction. Change upon change upon change, being split up, branching off and change upon change again. Several groups will go through multiple changes until they can’t interbreed any longer as their genetic codes have become incompatible, they can’t effectively be combined with each other any longer. They will be a different kind of animal from then on.

What you call a transitional animal is just a snap shot of a certain situation in time, similar to taking pictures of a person during his lifetime.
You will have a picture of a baby, and a picture of an adult, and a picture of an old granddad. Where are the transitional forms of this person? Where is that picture where he suddenly changes from child into adult? If you would find one from around his puberty, he would still not be all too different from being a child, but also not too different from being an adult, but that transitional form you could always dispute as it resembles the form on both sides of the time line; you might say that the puberty picture is just a variation of the child version or the adult version. You could even say that all forms are transitional!

Now, this idea of evolution was there before we found hard evidence for it in the form of DNA and markers. The fossils were already in place and offered early evidence, unless the flood has sorted out all these fossils and placed them neatly in different layers.

Quote: › “If a duck and a croc are related, explain to me when and where they became unrelated.”

That would have happened a very long time ago as both animals are very different these days, and also very different from their common ancestor by now, but that ‘becoming unrelated’ is not something that would have happened in a few generations, so we would not be able to witness that. It is usually way too gradual for that.

Perhaps this might give you the idea though.

Quote: › “Reverse evolve a wolf FROM a Dachshund. It is impossible. Loss of information.”

Why would that be impossible?
Only that information can be lost that does not matter for the survival of the animal. If there is no selective pressure on a certain piece of information, only that part will deteriorate. New information can be added if a feature that was before not very vital, gets a new function that gives a selective advantage. So overall information will change, but not lost.
Although I would think to reverse that process would be difficult for humans as we do not know all the selective pressures we would need to reverse. We would probably tend to breed judging on appearance, which would not be quite right but certainly possible. But in theory there is nothing standing in your way and in fact it has been tried.

Check this for example.
I'm sorry I can't link you right away, you need to choose 'reviving animals' and then 'selective breeding.'

You talked about the wolf’s superiority to dogs, let’s assume that this is true, than it would be easy to explain: dogs are not evolved but are a result of breeding by man. They are not subjected to natural pressure but artificial selective pressure. So certain weaknesses would not have been removed by nature as the dogs have been taking care of by humans.
Still, if there would only be loss of information, I doubt it that you would be able to breed dogs to a point were they are that far away from wolfs as they are now and not fall apart.

Quote: › “All the different fruit flies are still fruit flies.”

Check my above explanation about evolution. And when would you stop calling that animal a fruit fly? As the last generation would resemble the generation before that very much, and so on.

Quote: › “Evolution requires a long time for one kind of animal to become another. If it didn't, we would see mixes of animals, transitional, all over the place.”

Evolution depends on succeeding selective pressures. If the environment remains stabile for a very long time, evolution will go very slow or hardly progress at all for a very long time, if the environment changes more rapidly, evolution will move faster.
In fact, dog breeding shows exactly what you describe: all kind of mixes are possible, but not all. Usually if animals live so close together that they still can interbreed, they will simply stay one animal. Only if they are cut off from the others they branch off to be more different. Take for example the animals of Australia, who are very different from the other animals on this planet as their whole continent was cut off and developed a more specific fauna. The sheep, by the way, are imported only recently...

Quote: › “Adaptation requires a very short amount of time. That's why we can see different variations within the same animal.”

Where does adaptation stop before it would become evolution? If an animal is able to adapt without losing VITAL information, it must be able to adapt and adapt and adapt and adapt?
Where would that stop? If you would finally end up with a dog that looks, for example, like a horse, and can’t interbreed with other dogs, would that still be a dog?
Is a fox different enough from a coyote to be a different animal?
Is a donkey different enough from a horse to stop calling it a horse?
Why don’t we call a donkey ‘horse?’

Or is adaptation also a loss of vital information? But than animals would not be able to change at all?

Quote: › “God did give us an example of selection. Did you read that passage in Genesis?”

I might not have noticed it as a result of my sinful nature. If you tell me what you mean I will read it.

Quote: › “You don't have to be a bible thumper to think and know that evolution is a serious load of manure.”

To be able to consider evolution a ‘serious load of manure,’ you need to know as little as possible about evolution.
Evolution is not an option for you, no matter the evidence, as that would destroy your literal interpretation of Genesis. It has nothing to do with the evidence for evolution.

My world would not fall apart if evolution would turn out to be false, but I simply can’t deny the evidence.

At one side we have an old book, much like many other books mankind managed to compose, claimed to be divine inspired but talks about slavery, stoning and a flat earth, and seems to be loosely based on much older Babylonian and Mesopotamian religions,
and at the other side we have fossils, also of ‘transitional forms’, DNA, markers, vestigial structures in many different animals, molecular sequences, comperative anatomy, etc. Although all different disciplines of science, ALL agreeing on the same subject.

Now why would God want to confuse the scientists that way, by giving them all this evidence to support something that conflicts (depending on Bible interpretation) His message?

Why would scientists be able to, for example, determine who is the father of a child, but interpret all evidence regarding evolution falsely?
If you start to judge science by its fruits, something even your Bible tells you to do, than for them to be completely off regarding evolution, they should, statistically speaking, be off regarding all else too, don’t you think?

Perhaps you could compare it to a novelist: would it be probable for him to write most outstanding and highly praised works AND complete crap as well at the same time?

How would you explain that phenomena?

Harrie,

[quote]I might not have noticed it as a result of my sinful nature.[/quote]

It is written in plain English. Even Dutch. It's in Genesis 30 and 31.

[quote]Although all different disciplines of science, ALL agreeing on the same subject. [/quote]

They believed it before they started on their career paths. Like you, they will not diverge.

Presuppositions. Believe it or not, I used to accept evolution wholeheartedly. I had been seeing evidences for creation before I was a Christian and THAT started me doubting evolution as a viable explanation for reality.

Seventh grade science teacher, not a Christian, told us there was compelling evidence for a much younger earth than science has been teaching. 50,000 years.

This was the mid-80's. Evolution was at it's strongest. Little or no creationism invading schools.

So, yes, I can change my thinking.

[quote]Now why would God want to confuse the scientists that way,[/quote]

Now why would scientist want to deny God by ignoring the evidences for creation? Sin.

[quote]but interpret all evidence regarding evolution falsely? [/quote]

God haters. Exchanging the Creator for the created.

[quote]How would you explain that phenomena?[/quote]

Watch Oprah and you will see how it is done.

You have missed a bit that is rather crucial to my understanding, and that was why I put it in bold:

Where does adaptation stop before it would become evolution? If an animal is able to adapt without losing VITAL information, it must be able to adapt and adapt and adapt and adapt?
Where would that stop? If you would finally end up with a dog that looks, for example, like a horse, and can’t interbreed with other dogs, would that still be a dog?
Is a fox different enough from a coyote to be a different animal?
Is a donkey different enough from a horse to stop calling it a horse?
Why don’t we call a donkey ‘horse?’

Quote: › “It is written in plain English. Even Dutch. It's in Genesis 30 and 31.”

A complete English quote of the relevant part would have been nice; I will look for it next time I read Genesis. Thanks for the hint, it will probably be there among all those other verses...
And if I find it, what am I supposed to learn from it? That evolution is impossible?

Me: “Although all different disciplines of science, ALL agreeing on the same subject.”

Quote: › “They believed it before they started on their career paths.”

We don’t know that, do we? The point is that these methods are a very useful model of reality that has proved to work, and that is why so many scientist belief in such methods. If it would not be correct what they belief, their models would not work. In science you are done for then.

Quote: › “Like you, they will not diverge.”

Nothing will happen to me if I diverge. Darwin’s ghost will not haunt me and shove me in a evolutionist hell. I have only to gain and nothing to lose in becoming a Christian again, don’t you think?
So why shouldn’t I diverge if I see a good reason to do so?

You, on the other hand can’t diverge, as you use the Bible as a reference to all other, and have a fear of hell.
Still, if you have chosen the wrong faith, you might still end up in a hellish place? After all, if so many other theists made that mistake, why can’t you?

Quote: › “Presuppositions. Believe it or not, I used to accept evolution wholeheartedly.”

That is indeed amazing and something I had not expected.

Quote: › “I had been seeing evidences for creation before I was a Christian and THAT started me doubting evolution as a viable explanation for reality.”

Before you were a Christian? Really? There was a time in your conscious life you did not belief in God? You were raised an @theist or agnostic? What evidence for creation was this?

Quote: › “Seventh grade science teacher, not a Christian, told us there was compelling evidence for a much younger earth than science has been teaching. 50,000 years.”

That is quite amazing too, for a teacher, but then again it was seventh grade... You say he was a not a Christian? What was his religion? What was this compelling evidence?
But 50000 years is still 40000 off, isn’t it? So if there is compelling evidence that the earth would be 50000 years old, isn’t that still compelling evidence AGAINST the Bible?
So based on science that teacher must be wrong as 50000 is not old enough, but also based on the Bible he must be wrong as that is way too old?

Quote: › “This was the mid-80's. Evolution was at it's strongest. Little or no creationism invading schools.”

I think evolution among scientists is stronger than ever, but I agree that creationism is indeed invading schools and the public is dumbing down. I think this is a very sad situation though, and if you allow creationism into schools, you should also teach the Muslim and Hindu variation of creationism etc, don’t you think? All accordingly to the population perhaps? And the Catholics would still teach evolution...

Quote: › “So, yes, I can change my thinking.”

You can’t anymore now, you realize that?
The Bible is the truth, and everything that does not support the Bible is false. You don’t have a choice any longer.

Me: “Now why would God want to confuse the scientists that way,”

Quote: › “Now why would scientist want to deny God by ignoring the evidences for creation? Sin.”

What sin? A sin committed by scientists? Our inherited, God given sinful nature?

Me: “but interpret all evidence regarding evolution falsely?”

Quote: › “God haters. Exchanging the Creator for the created.”

But something quite compelling made them belief in evolution, you will agree? Many scientists probably will have been religious in their life, and some no doubt still will be.

But how can scientists be able to do what they do, construct what they construct, predict what they predict, and still be completely off regarding the core of their findings which they have been collecting by combining very different disciplines during several generations?
And HOW is it possible that these different disciplines support each other? If they are wrong, they should point in all randomly different directions? How are they capable of, for example, designing and constructing a machine like the Large Hadron Collider when they interpret the facts wrongly? How can you put a man on the moon using flawed science?
Code is where and how it is expected, fossils are found in layers where they were expected, artifacts in our bodies are found that show an evolutionary history... etc.

The first scientists were mostly religious, not looking to disprove God in any way, don’t you think? I think even @theist scientists are not looking to disprove God, they are simply looking for the truth. And perhaps simply disprove certain aspects of God while they are looking for that truth?
Yet being emerged into the facts of nature, thinking about it, combining facts, combining disciplines, all of that convinced them of a certain truth that often conflicts the Biblical words. We are not talking about the village idiots here, but people who have learned about nature and are deeply involved in that nature and PROVED their theories with hard evidence. Yet they can’t find the hand of God?

To disbelief the Bible they even gave up their ticket to heaven. Quite a price for a lie, isn’t it? So it can’t be motivation, it must be something else, don’t you agree?