Challenging Evolution

i should not even address this post at all because of the hostility in it, but I will say this.

If you read my entire post, I offered discussion in which we could find a common ground for the definition of kind. Note my post where it says

BTW, my son suggest that kind be defined by the old definition of species. Could you please explain the old and new definitions for species and highlight the differences between the two.

But you are too busy disproving scientific terminology to address the discussion with any sincerity which is why I was on my way out of the discussion to start out with. I will continue the discussion with anyone who wants to rid themselves of this hostility first but otherwise, I cannot stay. I have much to learn and much to teach and have no interest in the emotional banter used to prove how wise one is in his own eyes.

No more excusses, no more redefining, no more argueing, but start communicating. Where the two theories primarily conflict, as best as I can tell from these discussions, is that C says, that mutations accross species lines, (species being lions, salamanders, etc. Based on the definitions provided here, not subspecies. )are not possible. This is based on the original theory and on scientific observations over hundreds of years. Whereas the TOE says that mutations that cross this species line is possible and will be proven over time. This statement is boastful and is not proven by any evidence that has currently been presented. There are experiments that suggest the possibility, but unless it is proven, it still remains a theory.

Razzel… just a word of encouragement here: The requirement to define kind is not necessary in order for the Creation Theory to work. This argument over “kind” is a distraction from their lack of a definition between species and class in their taxonomical procedure. Don’t let it bother you. Neither side has EVER been able to give a solid definition.

Reptiles producing mammals? Apes producing humans? Now whose is Theory and whose is Science?

Not true. Creationism has NEVER been falsified. You state in “1” that it is “un-testable” or “un-falsifiable”, throwing it out of the realm of science, and then argue here that it has been falsified. Which is it? Is it science? If so, being un-testable or un-falsifiable, then you are wrong. If it is not science, then it has not been falsified.

Extrapolations, assumptions, psuedo observations, and suppositions – all are valid descriptions of TOE.

NO… we can only trace human history back about 6000 years. Quite a coincidence I’d say.

And there is NO WAY this is due to a common design? Of course that is not included in TOE.

Trinity

I don't have a clue, I'm not old enough to know the old definitions. how old are we talking by the way? pre darwinian? the problem is that there are alot of species that have been identified as separate species that aren't, and alot that have been defined as the same species that aren't. the fact that I don't have a clue is why I suggest you ask your son, since he put it forwards it's all well and good defining something, but what use is it if the definition is untestable?

Sorry, but there's no hostility in my post - simply facts.


No discussion is needed - creationism postulates "kinds", it's up to creationism to define them. Certainly, if it wants to ever be considered a scientific theory, it needs to actually become one...which means (at the least) coming up with a definition of its terms.

To the best of my knowledge, there are no "old" and "new" definitions of species. What do you (or your son) think they are?

In addition, "kinds" cannot be species, because "kinds" are evolutionarily inviolate, and we have witnessed cross-species evolution (speciation).


I'm not disproving any scientific terminology. I'm asking you for the scientific definition of words involved in the purportedly scientific theory you support. I'm sorry that you think someone who asks you to define a term is hostile, but it's not the case. The definition of "kind" is something that creationists have been repeatedly asked for, and they consistently avoid and evade doing so - just as you are.

If it isn't definable, then how can it be scientific? If it isn't scientific, how can we use it in our scientific observations? If we can't use it in our scientific observations, how can we determine if the theory holds true, including E. For as I understand E, it is important to identify different animal groups.

Horizontally, perhaps, we would see variations… but not vertically that TOE calls for.

A fossil? A collection of fossil fragments? The lower jaw bone of a reptile?

Never? OK. Perhaps addressing the 20 other people wanting to take their shots is handwaving.

You want to present the evidence for a uni-cellular organism to “evolve” into a multi-cellular organism… which is assumed, supposed, extrapolated too (pick your description) by TOE, and we can discuss that first.

Really? Tens of thousands? Recorded human history? Please refer me to the evidence for anything beyond… lets say 5000 years.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/pseudogene.asp
http://www.icr.org/faqs/sgp147.html

I’m not a geneticist. These two articles do a pretty good job of coherently outlining the problems with your thesis.

Trinity