Why do YE Creationists insist on a simplistic literal reading of the bible?

[lasthero]

. All I am saying is that some evolutionisit have questioned some of the conclusions of other evolutionists.

This just in - scientists disagree about certain things.

 

[frogman2x]

Now that you have equated "kind" and "species," perhaps you are now finally ready to answer my question. Are panthers all one kind, or are each of the various panthers (lion, tiger, jaguar, leopard) separate kinds?

Go back to my definition. Can they breed and produce offspring. Now you can answer for your self.

 

[lasthero]

Go back to my definition. Can they breed and produce offspring. Now you can answer for your self.

So Chihuahuas and Great Danes are different kinds?

 

[frogman2x]

Repost this in English, please. Are you typing with your tongue?

And now you've moved the goalpost.<<

If you are trying to get a postion with the typo police, you will be able to advance rapidly by pointing out my typo.

If what you say is true - that kinds are animals that can interbreed, and we never see one kind of animal turning into another kind - it shouldn't matter the reason that certain animals can't interbreed any longer.<<

Yes it edoe matter.

If they're that way for any reason, they're not the same kind anymore, because they can't interbreed, by the very definition that you've set up.

That is why the reason they can't mate is important. Is it biological or are they troy a different swpecies. Now tell me of a species that can no longer mate and why they can't.

We can go with yours. I like it, because it's so easy to poke holes through.

Wonderful. Get your sharpest stick and start poking.

 

[frogman2x]

So Chihuahuas and Great Danes are different kinds?

I dont know. Give the reason why they cant mate.

 

[JWGU]

I'm curious, frogman2x. You seem to have some implicit assumption about what it would take, mating-wise, for two species not to be considered different kinds. I don't think a human and a chimp can mate (I don't actually know). Do you know why they can't mate, if that's the case? I don't, not off the top of my head anyway. But if they can't mate, and they are different kinds, then whatever the reason is that they can't mate must be enough to distinguish one kind from another, isn't that so? So please give us the reason so we can add it to our definition of speciation.

 

[lasthero]

If you are trying to get a postion with the typo police, you will be able to advance rapidly by pointing out my typo.

Typically I wouldn't care so much, but it's getting to the point where your arguments not only lack cogency, but coherence. Like this:

Is it biological or are they troy a different swpecies

I have no idea what you mean, here. Why is the name 'Troy' in the middle of the sentence? My first thought was that you meant 'try', but that doesn't make the sentence much better.

Now tell me of a species that can no longer mate and why they can't.

No. You stated that two animals are a different kind when they can't interbreed. Chihuahuas and Great Dane's cannot interbreed. Ergo, they must not be the same kind. Your criteria has been met. If you have some extra criteria, then add it on yourself.

Yes it edoe matter.

Why edoe it matter?

 

[OllieFranz]

Yes



If you can prove it, I will have to accept it. You also must prove that speciation is capable of a spcies becoming a different one and the reason they can no longer mate.

A Great Dane and a chihuahua can probably not mate physically, but presumably if you went the in vitro route (mixing egg and sperm in a dish), you could possibly get a viable zygote. Certainly, you could mate a Dane with a St Bernard, and a chihuahua with a toy poodle, and in four or five generations wind up with a dog with both Dane and chihuahua genes. It would be a mongrel, and would look like mongrels from other parentages.

Natural selection is not as exclusive as human selection/breeding, and so, as long as the population is both fully connected (no isolated pockets in a hidden valley or on separate islands, etc) and relatively compact (so any two given individuals have at least a chance of finding one another and mating no matter where in the population they come from) any new variation can spread through the entire population and so that, absent an environmental pressure selecting for it, it won't overwhelm the older variations. The population is all mongrelized, and any concentration of one trait over the other variations that does develop only lasts a generation or two.

However, if the population is growing, and spreading out into new territory, there will different environmental pressures in different aread. Traits selected to meet those pressures will persist. Heavier coats will be more prevalent in colder climates, streamlined bodies and more paddle-like limbs in wetlands, etc. And the larger territory will mean it will be harder for individuals at the extreme ends to meet to interbreed. You get a natural equivalent of breeds within the species. If there is a natural barrier, a mountain, a lake, a canyon, etc, spreading out on either side of the barrier is equivalent to spreading out in opposite directions, because it can be just as unlikely that an individual from the northernmost herd to the east of the barrier to find and mate with an individual from the northernmost herd on the western side. (This assumes that the original population came from south of the barrier and is spreading northward. Adjust the directions accordingly for other starting points).

When the two branches of the population finally clear the northern end of the barrier, and meet again, they might look and act completely differently, the equivalent of a Great Dane vs a chihuahua. They may remain separate herds becuase the can no longer interbreed. In some cases, it may be a physical incompatability, like size, but in other cases it could be biochemical due to the mutations and new traits developed during the separation. It can even be a genetic incompatability.

We wind up with a Ring Species. Every herd can fully breed with the herd immediately to its south, and theoretically, it should even be possible to mongrelize descendents of the two extreme herd given enough generations heading south until the offspring are compatable again. It is still possible to argue that it is still one species, one kind.

But suppose, something happens on the eastern branch to change the environment, wiping out a group of herds, and the last surviving herds at the edges of this new barrier already cannot interbreed, or can only interbreed with difficulty. The herds north of this new barrier are cut off from the rest of the ring species, and will only deviate even further from however the main group develops. Fom that point on, it is, effectively, a different species. Is it also a new kind?

What I have described, is what happened to the bird called the Greenis Warbler. The new environmental barrier cutting off the Northeastern herds from the main group is the urbanization of Siberia, and it happened in the last fifty years. We have witnessed speciation in our lifetime.

That question of whether the norteastern branch of the Greenis Warbler is a new kind is essentially the same question as my standing question about panthers. And if you decide that panthers are all one kind, what about those leopards that are not panthers? What about other large cats? At what point do we say we can't make the connection?

Or if the tigers are a separate kind from the lions, what about Bengal tigers vs Siberian tigers? They are separate species, after all.

 

[OllieFranz]

Now that you have equated "kind" and "species," perhaps you are now finally ready to answer my question. Are panthers all one kind, or are each of the various panthers (lion, tiger, jaguar, leopard) separate kinds?

Go back to my definition. Can they breed and produce offspring. Now you can answer for your self.

It is like mating horses and donkeys to produce mules. It is possible, but very difficult, and the offspring, if they survive, are far more often infertile than fertile. It may have been easier using the Asian lions from the Near East as intermediaries, before they were wiped out by the Romans. Or it may have been too late even when Samson and David were alive and dealing with them. It's hard to quantify some "What ifs."

 

[OllieFranz]

We can believe whatever we want. The problem is proving what we say. Can youo do that?



Congratulation, you may have one thing right.

Not always, but often enough that I'll give you that. But they know that the faithful will simply trust them not to be lying and never check it out.

That shoe fits the evolutionist also. Have you ever checked out the evidence presented for whaal evolution? Have you eve checked out the biological evidence for natural selection?




I have never said or suggested the evolutionists is doubting evolution. All I am saying is that some evolutionisit have questioned some of the conclusions of other evolutionists. What I have ound to be generally true is the the evolutionist say it happened but never produce the biology that makes it possible. IMO, that is also deceptive and dishonest. So look at your own house b efor you start throwing rocks at mine.




If he has only done it once, like I did to him, that would be fine, but he coninues to do it.

And that's fine with me. IMO, it makes him look foolish but me thinking something is foolish does not make it foolish, but there is no excuse for being rude and insulting. That is a sign of immaturity.

When lasthero posted a link to a listing of uncorrected mined quotes from professional Creationist websites, you refused to look at it. When he posted an individual mined quote you refused to discuss it without a link.

You accuse adherents to the ToE of also mining quotes, but you have never backed up that accusation. Show me one instance where an evolution website (I'm not even asking for a professioal quality website that posters on forums like this rely on to make their arguments, but any ToE website) mines quotes and continues to rely on those mined quotes even after being called on about it.

 

[lasthero]

Oh, that reminds me.

The main problem is that most evolutionists recognize there are no transitional fossils.

"The know fossil record fails to documnt a single example of phyletic evolution accompolishing a morphologic transition...---Stephen M. Stanly, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, p39.

If evolution was true, the great majority, at least 80%, would be transitional. Even if you can prove a handful are transional, that still would not support evolution.

This is from another topic - I pointed it out there, but you didn't respond as far as I saw. By the way, I'd love to know how you arrived at 80% at your number for how many transitionals we need.

Anyway, here's the full context.

Some distinctive living species clearly originated in the very ecent past, during brief instants of geologic time. Thus, quantum speciation is a real phenomenon. Chapters 4 through 6 provide evidence for the great importance of quantum speciation in macroevolution (for the validity of the punctuated model). Less conclusive evidence is as follows: (1) Very weak gene flow among populations of a species (a common phenomenon) argues against gradualism, because without efficient gene flow, phyletic evolution is stymied. (2) Many levels of spatial heterogeneity normally characterize populations in nature, and at some level, the conflict between gene flow between subpopulations and selection pressure within subpopulations should oppose evolutionary divergence of large segments of the gene pool; only small populations are likely to diverge rapidly. (3) Geographic clines, which seem to preserve in modern space changes that occurred in evolutionary time, can be viewed as supporting the punctuational model, because continuous clines that record gradual evolution within large populations represent gentle morphologic trends, while stepped clines seem to record rapid divergence of small populations. (4) Net morphologic changes along major phylogenetic pathways generally represent such miniscule [sp] mean selection coefficients that nonepisodic modes of transition are unlikely. Quantum speciation or stepwise evolution within lineages is implied. (5) The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.

It's not arguing what you said it argues. At all.

 

[AV1611VET]

Could you please tell me how anyone would even begin to believe in creationism if they had not been systematically indoctrinated into believing it?

By picking up a Bible and reading It.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're joking of course, the Bible is full of death, destruction and a lot of bad advice, it's a catalogue of life at a time when people knew very little about the world they lived in and believed whatever others told them, they believed everything they didn't understand was caused either by magic or Gods.
The Bible is for some people to cherry pick the parts that give them a nice warm glow and for con men to make money,
the first should be helped and the second should be locked up.

Bloxer, you asked this question:

Could you please tell me how anyone would even begin to believe in creationism if they had not been systematically indoctrinated into believing it?

I answered with this:

By picking up a Bible and reading It.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Perhaps I should have been more specific.

By picking up a Bible and reading ...

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 

[AV1611VET]

... far better to just live with the fact that one day you are going to die and it will all be over,
no life no God, nothing.

And while I'm waiting to die, and someone on a Christian website asks this:

Could you please tell me how anyone would even begin to believe in creationism if they had not been systematically indoctrinated into believing it?

Okay if I answer it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Just as long as you don't just make something up,

I didn't though, did I?

In fact, I supported it with a verse from the Bible, didn't I?

Here it is again:

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Now, if I made that up, what's it doing in the Bible? coincidence?

 

[AV1611VET]

You are just trying to confirm one lie with another,

Let's see if that's true, shall we?

the Bible is just a compilation of old writings from a time when they believed things you would not expect children to believe today.

Then it's not a lie, and I'm not "confirming one lie with another," am I?

 

[AV1611VET]

They didn't know it was lie because they knew no better...

I have a feeling if they were alive today, and knew science inside and out, they would disagree with you.

... but you should, you know it's a lie you just chose not to believe it.

Fine ... I choose not to believe a lie.

What's wrong with that?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes I messed that up a little and you jumped on it because that's how you live your life with diversion and semantics.

-- Don't go away mad.

 

[frogman2x]

This just in - scientists disagree about certain things.

Of course. How do yoou detemine which one is right?

 

[frogman2x]

I'm curious, frogman2x. You seem to have some implicit assumption about what it would take, mating-wise, for two species not to be considered different kinds. I don't think a human and a chimp can mate (I don't actually know).

They can't mate becasue they are not the same "kind." A few years back, they tried teo transplant a baboon heart into a human. He laste a few days but eventgually died. Even the parts of unlike kinds will not not work,

Do you know why they can't mate, if that's the case? I don't, not off the top of my head anyway. But if they can't mate, and they are different kinds, then whatever the reason is that they can't mate must be enough to distinguish one kind from another, isn't that so?

Exactly

[/QUOTE]So please give us the reason so we can add it to our definition of speciation.[/quote]

It is not about speciation, it is about who can mate and who canot.

Why don't you tell me how speciation is a mechanism for evolution.