Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
You had me up to this last two sentences, can I assume you are talking about specific aspects of the theory of C as put forth by teachers of the theory rather than the root theory itself?
I personally have never heard a C make the claim that kind has clear boundries. I have heard some in both camps try to make it so, but have never read it in the bible, not heard C claim it to be so. The kind as put forth in the original theory, has no specifications as far as I can tell.
Well, again you show that you are unique. I have never heard a creo say that the kind was not a distinct group, a separate creation from all other kinds, and that it was quite impossible for an evolutionary lineage to lead from one kind to another. Every form of creationism I have ever encountered says that variation, adaptation and speciation occur only within the "kind".
If you do not agree with that, then you are not in agreement with creationists on this point. You may be the only person on earth with some sympathy for creationism that does not interpret "kind" in this way. Certainly, in my experience you are.
So, then why are we allowed to throw away decades of observations that prove that animals reproduce after their kind because C is falsified?
That creatures reproduce is an observed fact. No matter what theory one propounds, one does not throw away that observation. That offspring are very like, if not exactly like, their parents is also an observed fact. So you do not throw that out no matter what the theory either.
Creationism is not falsified on the grounds that species do reproduce copies which are very similar to themselves. Creationism is falsified on the grounds that it denies that the differences between parent and offspring can accumulate over time to change the species. It has been shown that this does occur.
How is it falsified when we have been observing this phenomina for as long as man has observed and recorded scientific observations? You are confusing me even more! Or are you still stuck back on proving the YEC false. I haven't heard a C for I can't even begin to know how many years actually claim that the earth is young and there is no room for anything else. I am sure this old school of thought still exists, but I seldom run into it.
There are regions of the US where YECism is the majority opinion. I don't live in one of those areas. Virtually everyone I know personally is a TE on this issue. Apparently you do not live in such a region either.
Last edited by gluadys; 9th August 2004 at 09:52 PM.
Reason: Spelling correction
yes, and that is that many different kinds were made independently. the problem is that we don't see this happening at all. In genesis we have the fowl created before the land animals, but in reality we have arboreal dinosaurs before we have birds. we have whales before land animals, but whales are a mammal that went back into the sea.
next step is the ark. we have two of each kind put onto the ark. the problem there is that if we define kinds as species we end up with seceral million animals on the ark. if we define to too loosely, then we require hyperevolution after landfall. then there is the question of how we know if two animals are of a kind or a different kind, and there is no way to tell.
We do not observe dogs having dog young? What kind of babies does your cat birth? Sorry, but all of our observations are consistant with life reproducing after their "kind". Science has proven this and is proving this all the time. Now, the fossil records are a different discussion. The last fossil records I examined left a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of room for interpretation of the data. Unless there has been a lot of new evidence since that time, it is inconclusive and suggests E but nothing more. As we should all be aware, the possibility for a theory to happen is much different than proof that it did.
As to the ark, This is new information to me and one I still am hearing conflicting reports on. I would be interested in seeing the new research, but I simple don't have time to review it carefully at this time. If someone would like to point me to this new research, I will happily review it as I have time. In the meantime, considering the conflicting reports, it is currently open to possibilities, and is inconclusive until proven otherwise. In fact, one the posts on this thread touched on the issue and I posted some questions and alternative possibilities that went unanswered.
There are regions of the US where YECism is the majority opinion.
I always find this fact astonishing. In Europe YECs are rare as hens teeth, and until coming to CF I had only ever encountered 2 in 34 years. On coming here I discovered that YEC is still a widely believed notion in the USA, or at least in parts of it. Its an interesting discovery to observe.
I have nowhere assumed what you or others believe. I have been discussing creationism. If you are not a creationist, fine. If you are, fine. Regardless of your beliefs, I have been discussing creationism.
And a creationist can "fully accept the scientific definition of species" quite happily. What they canNOT do is use that definition as the definition of "kind".
Okay, if this is your stand, then before I can address any of your posts, you will have to define what E is, what C is, what ID is, and what I am, for I have posted my beliefs on the issue and your definitions do not fit. Once you give complete and accurate definitions for each, maybe we can have a reasonable discussion so that we are one the same page.
Who is suggesting that we throw away decades of observeration? Your error lies in thinking that decades of observation "prove" that animals reproduce after their own kind.
I'm not "stuck back on proving the YEC false." It has been proven false to the satisfaction of thw world's scientists (who know vastly more about the subject than you or I). What I have been doing is demonstrating that one of the major flaws of creationism is that they cannot even define the most important biological definition necessary to creationism - that fo "kind".
Well, again you show that you are unique. I have never heard a creo say that the kind was not a distinct group, a separate creation from all other kinds, and that it was quite impossible for an evolutionary lineage to lead from one kind to another. Every form of creationism I have ever encountered says that variation, adaptation and speciation occur only within the "kind".
If you do not agree with that, then you are not in agreement with creationists on this point. You may be the only person on earth with some sympathy for creationism that does not interpret "kind" in this way. Certainly, in my experience you are.
It would seem that you are reading into my belief a bit, I am not saying that it is possible for one cell to evolve into all the species we have today, rather what I am saying is that a mastif and a yorky are both dogs and are decendant from dogs. The variations come from inbreeding, not crossing species lines. To cross species lines would means, a cat being from the species of dog. This is not proven by any means that I currently know of and is theory based on the possibility that science has observed. So it the possibility that species lines are not crossed. Thus both are theories. A mastif and a yorky, are subspecies of a bigger group called species, as I understand clasifications. Am I missing something important here?
We do not observe dogs having dog young? What kind of babies does your cat birth? Sorry, but all of our observations are consistant with life reproducing after their "kind".
again, evolution says absolutely no different, though speciations will occur and characters may become so derived as to make the new version completely differnt to the old version, so much so that one would not trivially consider them the same. (if an alien came to earth today, would he really think that Great Danes and Chihuauas shared a recent common ancestor, without doing extensive tests?) The difference is the backwards difference. evolution predicts that intermediates between the different species will be found (and they are) it predicts that there will be a whole host of other similarities, which I have gone over already.
Science has proven this and is proving this all the time. Now, the fossil records are a different discussion. The last fossil records I examined left a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of room for interpretation of the data. Unless there has been a lot of new evidence since that time, it is inconclusive and suggests E but nothing more.
really? then what do you consider the theropod, cetacean and human lineages then? even the therapsid lineage is highly significant in that it shows directly a whole host of intermediate mammalian-reptillian features (including a creature which simultaneously had a mammalian and a reptillian jaw) and what is more, these lineages match up extremely well with the genetic record, both in a quantitative and qualitative sense.
As to the ark, This is new information to me and one I still am hearing conflicting reports on. I would be interested in seeing the new research, but I simple don't have time to review it carefully at this time. If someone would like to point me to this new research, I will happily review it as I have time. In the meantime, considering the conflicting reports, it is currently open to possibilities, and is inconclusive until proven otherwise. In fact, one the posts on this thread touched on the issue and I posted some questions and alternative possibilities that went unanswered.
conflicting reports? I am not aware that anyone is really researching it with vigour anymore. the creationists might have a bit of a try, but given that they cannot even define a kind yet, they have no clue how many organisms were on board the ark, or for that matter how much evolution was required post-landfall. bear in mind that there are a number of cultures which were recording things for the past 6000 years, and there seems to be remarkably little in the way of mentions of rapidly changing animals. Creationist attepts at baraminology are laughable, and when they try something such as characterising the ancestry of the primates using humans as an ourgroup, their results fail miserably.
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
That creatures reproduce is an observed fact. No matter what theory one propounds, one does not throw away that observation. That offspring are very like, if not exactly like, their parents is also an observed fact. So you do not throw that out no matter what the theory either.
Creationism is not falsified on the grounds that species do reproduce copies which are very similar to themselves. Creationism is falsified on the grounds that it denies that the differences between parent and offspring can accumulate over time to change the species. It has been shown that this does occur.
Again, that would depend on the definition of species. I have not seen sufficient evidence to suggest that a salamander can viably sustain a mutation that would produce an offspring vastly different from itself. Remember that fuzzyness in the definition of species. To falsify C on the grounds that that line is fuzzy, grossly steps of the line of the scientific methodology we have discussed earlier. Instead, it suggests more discussion as to defining species on both side, not just one.
In fact, one of the reasons I doubt this species change, is because of the adaptabilty of animals to their environment. Take for instance, the neonate salamander, as long as the neonate is kept in an environment that limits its growth, it remains neonate, (young form) When however, (I think it was Iodine) the chemicals are introduced into it's environment that are lacking, it grows into a salamander. The species has not changed, but it's ability to adapt to it's environment is still in tacked. This amazing ability is exactly why I doubt the possibility of crossing species lines. HOwever, that is not to say that subspecies lines are not observed as being crossed. This is observed and one could assume that species lines could be crossed much the same way I assume they cannot. The problem is two fold, 1. there is no actual evidence showing the lines have been definately crossed (meaning no error in the definition can account for the claim) 2. Until both camps can settle on an accurate definition that is not fuzzy, there cannot be any proof of either because it becomes an interpretation of the definition from both sides.
I have heard here how E does not require a specific definition for species to be proven, I differ with this assumption. I think that if E cannot be more specific in it's definition of species, it cannot ever be proven or disprove C. Why, because the whole theory relies on the change from one species to another. It makes it or breaks it on this one point. So if the E wants to prove that E is fact, all that is required is to manipulate a fuzzy definition of species and fit the observations. And the E finds this acceptable all the while saying that the C cannot do the same thing. It is double standards like this that leave many to question the entire theory of E rather than just parts of the theory. Both theories hinge on the definition of species! It is up to both to come up with a definition that is testable.
There are regions of the US where YECism is the majority opinion. I don't live in one of those areas. Virtually everyone I know personally is a TE on this issue. Apparently you do not live in such a region either.
Aparantly, or at lease circles of people we talk to.
So much to do...so little time to do it....so where do we go from here?
Originally Posted by gluadys
That creatures reproduce is an observed fact. No matter what theory one propounds, one does not throw away that observation. That offspring are very like, if not exactly like, their parents is also an observed fact. So you do not throw that out no matter what the theory either.
Creationism is not falsified on the grounds that species do reproduce copies which are very similar to themselves. Creationism is falsified on the grounds that it denies that the differences between parent and offspring can accumulate over time to change the species. It has been shown that this does occur.
There are regions of the US where YECism is the majority opinion. I don't live in one of those areas. Virtually everyone I know personally is a TE on this issue. Apparently you do not live in such a region either.
Happy Tuesday everybody!
(That's a special hi to Jet Black: hilarious profie, dude!)
It made me realise that I left Bible College the year you were born - interdenominational & international evangelical 1, so, yes, I do realise that many even born-again Christians believe in theistic evolution
But many my generation just got dazzled by presentational pzazz
Once again, the last 17 hours of posts confirm what God has laid on my heart to share
I've twice got agreement from evolutiomnists that if Darwin were right, evolution from 1 species-to-another-to another would still go on -(which again brings us to the millions of missing links - @ every supposed step/stage
So..
am I right in saying that you also expect it to continue?
That you view all change as progress?
So..
where do we go from here?
As individuals, & as a planet?
Let's consider the nature of changes within living memory, OK?
I can't resist asking if you realise that X-Men, 1 & 2, are pure fiction?
That the voice-over about, "sometimes evolution takes sudden/giant leaps forward!" is also pure fiction??
Having done high school in the '60s, I know that many simply accepted the great rallying cry of the 20th century - that science would lead us to a Utopia of leisure & pleasure, where robots & PCs would do all the work, leaving man to reach his full potential
The other great 20th century rallying cry was that mankind has finally come of age!
Aldous Huxley's classic, "Brave New World" was adopteds by UNESCO as inspiration for the mass-media 24x7, cradle-to-grave "education, education, eduacation - aka brainwashing - (thanks to HUxley's brother, Julian, who was high up in UNESCO)
Anyone recall it said, in the '70s, that there were enough WMDs to destroy mankind 12.5 times over?
Is that progress to Utopia?
Or recall it said, in '85, that they could do that 70+ times over?
Is that progress to Utopia?
The mad scientists/politicos etc are still refining & producing more & morer powerful explosives - shoe bombs down planes & suicide belts destroy big cafes/clubs & suitcase bombs are like multiple Hiroshima bombs
Is that progress to Utopia?
As for biochems to poison all waters, scorch all plants & cause strange sores on men's bodies, & allow the sun to scorch men - all prophesied in the Bible..
Is that progress to Utopia?
In the Cold War, only USSR & USA could do M.A.D - (Mutually Assured Destruction) - polluting the planet in the process
Now almost any terrorist can find formulae for heavy duty WMD on the 'Net
So much change is notnot progress, but decadence
Take the individual level
Ever since the '60s, we have seen "The Me Generation"
Self improvement - aka the pursuit of happiness - is all: personal possessions, power, popularity & prestige have been the common pursuit of nearly everyone, yes?
Are we happier now than in the austerity of the '40s &' 50s?
Or even than the '30s Depression?
Surely the fruit of drunkenness, drug abuse, promiscuity, etc, are all too painfully obvious?
Is that proof of progress to Utopia?
I'm sure that many readers saw & heard interviews with old soldiers from World Wars 1 & 2 about how, despite the horrendous things they have suffered, there was much more sense of community, of neighbourly helping each other & looking out for each other in the hard times than now
How do you, personally, plan to maximise your potential & find true fulfilment?
MMM
Man's Maker's Manual, the Bible, is the best possible guide
It's because most folk ignore it that life on Earth teeters on the brink of self destruction
Many, in many threads on this board, have played the numbers game
But following the crod = following a bunch of lemmings, headed full speed towards the Abyss
If all 6 billion finite humans said 1 thing, & Almighty God said the opposite, who would you believe?
Jesus said, "If you are ashamed og Me & My words, I will be ashamed of you - if you deny Me before men, I will deny you before My Father in Heaven"
Must go!
Ian
Last edited by mrversatile48; 10th August 2004 at 10:48 AM.
Reason: typo
We do not observe dogs having dog young? What kind of babies does your cat birth? Sorry, but all of our observations are consistant with life reproducing after their "kind". Science has proven this and is proving this all the time. Now, the fossil records are a different discussion. The last fossil records I examined left a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of room for interpretation of the data. Unless there has been a lot of new evidence since that time, it is inconclusive and suggests E but nothing more. As we should all be aware, the possibility for a theory to happen is much different than proof that it did.
Linear Mode
