| Creation & Evolution Forum 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. |
 | | 
28th October 2006, 03:02 AM
|  | Senior Contributor
32    
| | Join Date: 14th August 2006 Location: Italy
Posts: 11,497
Blessings: 3,091,820 My Mood 
Reps: 38,791,378,841,557,992 (power: 38,791,378,841,574) | | Originally Posted by dad  Why, and how? There was a full spectrum of creation. The adapting of the kinds filled in the gaps, so to speak, so that one could misread what really went on.
That's up to you to show. You're the one making the assertion, and you have provided no evidence that it is true. Many people on this board have posted evidence to you that provide support for their points of view. All you have said is that they are wrong, and therefore you are right.
I'm sorry, but that's not how it works. Just because Jill is wrong doesn't automatically make Jim correct. There is only one correct answer, but there are an infinite number of wrong ones. Merely stating that another is wrong doesn't automatically make you correct. So I ask again, where is your evidence that supports your position?
__________________
“It took me years, but letting go of religion has been the most profound wake up of my life. I feel I now look at the world not as a child, but as an adult. I see what's bad and it's really bad. But I also see what is beautiful, what is wonderful. And I feel so deeply appreciative that I am alive. How dare the religious use the term 'born again.' That truly describes freethinkers who've thrown off the shackles of religion so much better!” - Julia Sweeney |
28th October 2006, 03:09 AM
|  | Undefeated
 | | Join Date: 17th January 2005
Posts: 20,201
Blessings: 352,164 My Mood 
Reps: 118,712,461,112,472,176 (power: 118,712,461,112,500) | | Originally Posted by Chalnoth That's up to you to show. You're the one making the assertion, and you have provided no evidence that it is true. Many people on this board have posted evidence to you that provide support for their points of view. All you have said is that they are wrong, and therefore you are right.
No, I say that the created kinds and subsequent evolution account for anything we observe! I have showed a few trees, horses, dogs, and elephants, and how they came from a single kind originally! You have not shown evidence of any kind that is not the case! You have not shown some creature or something that does not fit the model! You have not been able tsupport a past that would rule out the ERVs getting around differently! So, what have you got? Foot stomping? Pony up the goods here, or stay exposed as not having any!
__________________
If the flood happened when laws were different than this present state we know, all bets are off for present state science being able to extrapolate backwards in any meaningful or accurate way. |
28th October 2006, 04:16 AM
| | Senior Contributor
32
| | Join Date: 14th August 2006 Location: Italy
Posts: 11,497
Blessings: 3,091,820 My Mood
Reps: 38,791,378,841,557,992 (power: 38,791,378,841,574) | | Originally Posted by dad No, I say that the created kinds and subsequent evolution account for anything we observe! I have showed a few trees, horses, dogs, and elephants, and how they came from a single kind originally!
And you have neglected the fact that those trees don't stop going back. Just because somebody put up a pretty graphic on a webpage showing how some current life forms are related doesn't mean that those life forms aren't related with others still further back.
__________________
“It took me years, but letting go of religion has been the most profound wake up of my life. I feel I now look at the world not as a child, but as an adult. I see what's bad and it's really bad. But I also see what is beautiful, what is wonderful. And I feel so deeply appreciative that I am alive. How dare the religious use the term 'born again.' That truly describes freethinkers who've thrown off the shackles of religion so much better!” - Julia Sweeney |
28th October 2006, 04:36 AM
| | Undefeated
| | Join Date: 17th January 2005
Posts: 20,201
Blessings: 352,164 My Mood
Reps: 118,712,461,112,472,176 (power: 118,712,461,112,500) | | Originally Posted by Chalnoth And you have neglected the fact that those trees don't stop going back. Just because somebody put up a pretty graphic on a webpage showing how some current life forms are related doesn't mean that those life forms aren't related with others still further back.
Yes it does unless you can prove it! You can't connect the worm to the elephant, even if they both had a virus. 
__________________
If the flood happened when laws were different than this present state we know, all bets are off for present state science being able to extrapolate backwards in any meaningful or accurate way.
Last edited by dad; 28th October 2006 at 04:44 AM.
|
28th October 2006, 05:28 AM
| | Senior Contributor
32
| | Join Date: 14th August 2006 Location: Italy
Posts: 11,497
Blessings: 3,091,820 My Mood
Reps: 38,791,378,841,557,992 (power: 38,791,378,841,574) | | Originally Posted by dad You can't connect the worm to the elephant,
Why not? Because you say so? Worms and elephants, along with all life forms on Earth, form one single nested hierarchy. There is no evidence of multiple nested hierarchies as you would expect from special creation.
__________________
“It took me years, but letting go of religion has been the most profound wake up of my life. I feel I now look at the world not as a child, but as an adult. I see what's bad and it's really bad. But I also see what is beautiful, what is wonderful. And I feel so deeply appreciative that I am alive. How dare the religious use the term 'born again.' That truly describes freethinkers who've thrown off the shackles of religion so much better!” - Julia Sweeney |
28th October 2006, 06:00 AM
| | Undefeated
| | Join Date: 17th January 2005
Posts: 20,201
Blessings: 352,164 My Mood
Reps: 118,712,461,112,472,176 (power: 118,712,461,112,500) | | Originally Posted by Chalnoth Why not? Because you say so? Worms and elephants, along with all life forms on Earth, form one single nested hierarchy. There is no evidence of multiple nested hierarchies as you would expect from special creation.
No, as you would expect. I see no reason to expect that at all. You cannot give us an elephant from a worm. The similarities are limited. God made the creeping things, and the little animals, and fish, and birds, and you cannot use similarities to mean a common ancestor. Where evolution did happen, from the kinds, there would be similarities due to a common ancestor, and all this makes up the big picture. Nothing on your constructed trees can alter that! There are nested groups, and the groups are from the kinds. Thats the kind of groups they are, thats the kind of nests they are, and you have no molecular data, or dna data, or anything else that can say otherwise. Fess up. While you can still save face.
__________________
If the flood happened when laws were different than this present state we know, all bets are off for present state science being able to extrapolate backwards in any meaningful or accurate way. |
28th October 2006, 11:31 AM
| | Senior Contributor
32
| | Join Date: 14th August 2006 Location: Italy
Posts: 11,497
Blessings: 3,091,820 My Mood
Reps: 38,791,378,841,557,992 (power: 38,791,378,841,574) | | Originally Posted by dad You cannot give us an elephant from a worm. The similarities are limited.
How are they limited? What specific mechanism prevents evolution from going beyond a certain point?
__________________
“It took me years, but letting go of religion has been the most profound wake up of my life. I feel I now look at the world not as a child, but as an adult. I see what's bad and it's really bad. But I also see what is beautiful, what is wonderful. And I feel so deeply appreciative that I am alive. How dare the religious use the term 'born again.' That truly describes freethinkers who've thrown off the shackles of religion so much better!” - Julia Sweeney |
28th October 2006, 03:37 PM
| | Undefeated
| | Join Date: 17th January 2005
Posts: 20,201
Blessings: 352,164 My Mood
Reps: 118,712,461,112,472,176 (power: 118,712,461,112,500) | | Originally Posted by Chalnoth How are they limited? What specific mechanism prevents evolution from going beyond a certain point?
With a full spectrum of creation, we need not explain it that way at all, and with evolving from the kinds, all we see is explained. If you want to claim it was ALL evolution, then you had better be able to prove it.
"The parents have a right to say that no teacher paid by their money shall rob their children of faith in God and send them back to their homes skeptical, or infidels, or agnostics, or atheists.
[Testimony at the Scopes trial, July 16, 1925]
__________________
If the flood happened when laws were different than this present state we know, all bets are off for present state science being able to extrapolate backwards in any meaningful or accurate way. |
28th October 2006, 03:47 PM
|  | Veteran
| | Join Date: 17th September 2004
Posts: 1,847
Blessings: 76,803
Reps: 1,588 (power: 10) | | Originally Posted by dad No, as you would expect. I see no reason to expect that at all. You cannot give us an elephant from a worm. The similarities are limited. God made the creeping things, and the little animals, and fish, and birds, and you cannot use similarities to mean a common ancestor. Where evolution did happen, from the kinds, there would be similarities due to a common ancestor, and all this makes up the big picture. Nothing on your constructed trees can alter that! There are nested groups, and the groups are from the kinds. Thats the kind of groups they are, thats the kind of nests they are, and you have no molecular data, or dna data, or anything else that can say otherwise. Fess up. While you can still save face.
Then please explain why all mammals have a single jaw bone, and three inner ear bones. Or explain why all chordates (which includes all vertebrates) develop their anus before their mouths. These seem to be rather arbitrary characters, and yet they are consistent across these groups, unifying them into taxa. How does special creation account for these facts of biology?  |
28th October 2006, 04:29 PM
| | Undefeated
| | Join Date: 17th January 2005
Posts: 20,201
Blessings: 352,164 My Mood
Reps: 118,712,461,112,472,176 (power: 118,712,461,112,500) | | Originally Posted by Ondoher Then please explain why all mammals have a single jaw bone, and three inner ear bones.
We need to eat, and get around, I would suspect. Are you suggesting just the one kind would need balance, and food??? You must be kidding. Or explain why all chordates (which includes all vertebrates) develop their anus before their mouths.
How would that matter? Why would anyone care? What would that have to do with kinds? That seems to be more a feature of how babies develop? Adam had a mouth first, as did all the created kinds anyhow! Looks like it went a little downhill since then. These seem to be rather arbitrary characters, and yet they are consistent across these groups, unifying them into taxa.
Who says those traits are so important? How about animals with souls? Do you know which ones have those? Does that rank a grouping? Or do you just care about anuses!? Get your priorities straight, man. How about eyes? How about sex? I mean who gave you the right to cherry pick anuses, and jaw bones as some great priority of biology???
Physical bodies do need to eat and dispose of waste, all of the kinds that were created.
That's it?? That is your big case? 
__________________
If the flood happened when laws were different than this present state we know, all bets are off for present state science being able to extrapolate backwards in any meaningful or accurate way. | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
