Would Anyone Care To Defend The Creation Model?

[TLK Valentine]

There is no need to be humble when show off God's word. The word is: Creation!

Funny how "Creation" gives one the excuse to not be humble...

but then again, what's what social control is all about.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So Lewontin is saying that lack of belief of God is not something one concludes because there's a lack of evidence for God's existence, but rather that this is an a priori assumption for science. Even though I'm not a creationist, I don't personally agree with this philosophy, but it's a very common one.

An a priori assumption of evolution through mutation perhaps as well, even if we understand it is breed mating with breed producing new breeds in reality?

What better evidence could you ask for than the works themselves? T. Rex remains T. Rex as Husky remains Husky, until one mates with another breed within that Kind and a new breed comes into existence. There were no missing transitional's - no gaps, just a pair of DNA strands re-combining to form a variant of the originals. Don't think it was a rib that was taken - when the original says it was a part of his side - but that other strand of DNA that when united (becomes one) makes a new creation. There is plenty of evidence if one just takes a correct understanding of both the words and the works.

 

[TLK Valentine]

An a priori assumption of evolution through mutation perhaps as well, even if we understand it is breed mating with breed producing new breeds in reality?

What better evidence could you ask for than the works themselves? T. Rex remains T. Rex as Husky remains Husky, until one mates with another breed within that Kind and a new breed comes into existence. There were no missing transitional's - no gaps, just a pair of DNA strands re-combining to form a variant of the originals. Don't think it was a rib that was taken - when the original says it was a part of his side - but that other strand of DNA that when united (becomes one) makes a new creation. There is plenty of evidence if one just takes a correct understanding of both the words and the works.

So... what's a Kind?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So... what's a Kind?

So.....what's a species? Two breeds that mate and produce fertile offspring? Or are those separate species? I'm not sure you have a definition of it yet. (Or at least one you will follow consistently)

EDIT: But all these breeds belong to their respective Kind.

 

[Shemjaza]

So.....what's a species? Two breeds that mate and produce fertile offspring? Or are those separate species? I'm not sure you have a definition of it yet. (Or at least one you will follow consistently)

EDIT: But all these breeds belong to their respective Kind.

I get it!

They all have two eyes, four legs, a spine, a nose, a mouth at the eye end bilateral symmetry!

These must all be part of the Tetropod kind!

 

[crjmurray]

So.....what's a species? Two breeds that mate and produce fertile offspring? Or are those separate species? I'm not sure you have a definition of it yet. (Or at least one you will follow consistently)

EDIT: But all these breeds belong to their respective Kind.

Now are you saying that cats, dogs, and those topsasaurases are all related?

 

[Aggie]

So.....what's a species? Two breeds that mate and produce fertile offspring? Or are those separate species? I'm not sure you have a definition of it yet. (Or at least one you will follow consistently)

EDIT: But all these breeds belong to their respective Kind.

Ken Ham says that Ceratopsia is a created kind, but the statistical tools creationists use to identify created kinds say otherwise. When these tools are applied to dinosaurs in an impartial manner, they result they actually produce is that almost all dinosaurs together constitute a single created kind. That's described in this paper.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I get it!

They all have two eyes, four legs, a spine, a nose, a mouth at the eye end bilateral symmetry!

These must all be part of the Tetropod kind!

Now are you saying that cats, dogs, and those topsasaurases are all related?

Not even worth debating with you two. Play stupid if you want.

 

[crjmurray]

Not even worth debating with you two. Play stupid if you want.

At least we're playing.

 

[SkyWriting]

How do anti-evolutionists explain the diversification of life on earth?

It's an awesome design that allows life to adapt even as the
Cosmos winds down from Creation and it's corruption of sin.
Heat death of the universe

What is the scientific reason that life developed, anyway?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ken Ham says that Ceratopsia is a created kind, but the statistical tools creationists use to identify created kinds say otherwise. When these tools are applied to dinosaurs in an impartial manner, they result they actually produce is that almost all dinosaurs together constitute a single created kind. That's described in this paper.

No, because even the Bible makes distinction between Ravens and Doves. He brought both of those Kinds onto the Ark - to reproduce their Kind after the cataclysm. Otherwise Noah could just have brought Doves. So IMO classifying all dinosaur as one Kind, would be like classifying all birds as one Kind, even if God made sure Noah brought one of Dove and Raven. Now all Finches may be of one Kind, etc, of this I would agree by the fact they can all interbreed. And some that may have lost that ability due to isolation etc., does not make them a different Kind, as long as it is obvious they came from the same Kind. Example house-cat and Jaguar. Both clearly of the Felidae Kind.

The distinction between Kinds is fairly clear. Although Dove and Raven share many similarities - they are each a distinct kind, which is why at least a pair of each was brought. Now other dove-like birds may be of the same Kind - as well as all raven type birds, etc.

EDIT" Anything else would be that a-priori assumption for either side kicking in.

 

[Shemjaza]

No, because even the Bible makes distinction between Ravens and Doves. He brought both of those Kinds onto the Ark - to reproduce their Kind after the cataclysm. Otherwise Noah could just have brought Doves. So IMO classifying all dinosaur as one Kind, would be like classifying all birds as one Kind, even if God made sure Noah brought one of Dove and Raven. Now all Finches may be of one Kind, etc, of this I would agree by the fact they can all interbreed. And some that may have lost that ability due to isolation etc., does not make them a different Kind, as long as it is obvious they came from the same Kind. Example house-cat and Jaguar. Both clearly of the Felidae Kind.

The distinction between Kinds is fairly clear. Although Dove and Raven share many similarities - they are each a distinct kind, which is why at least a pair of each was brought. Now other dove-like birds may be of the same Kind - as well as all raven type birds, etc.

EDIT" Anything else would be that a-priori assumption for either side kicking in.

So if house cats and jaguars are "Both clearly of the Felidae Kind", can you explain where you get your clarity from? That's the question that's never answered by creationists.

Several sentences earlier you said "all Finches may be of one Kind" (emphasis added), so I'm dubious about your certainty.

You do seem certain that the Noah's ark narative is both true and literal... but you haven't presented a reason for that either.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So if house cats and jaguars are "Both clearly of the Felidae Kind", can you explain where you get your clarity from? That's the question that's never answered by creationists.

Several sentences earlier you said "all Finches may be of one Kind" (emphasis added), so I'm dubious about your certainty.

You do seem certain that the Noah's ark narative is both true and literal... but you haven't presented a reason for that either.

Let's see. House-cat mates with Manx. Manx can mate with Jaguars. Jaguars can mate with Panthers. Panthers can mate with Lions. Lions can mate with Tigers. And all can produce fertile offspring. So why would I have any other illusion as to exactly what they are?

 

[TLK Valentine]

So.....what's a species? Two breeds that mate and produce fertile offspring? Or are those separate species? I'm not sure you have a definition of it yet. (Or at least one you will follow consistently)

I asked first.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not necessary "my version", but a version.
Of course, my version is the best.

Nonetheless, it's still a false dichotomy.

You restricted the available options without any sensible reason whatsoever.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That is grossly simplified and nebulous. Thus, it is NOT true.

No. That's exactly true.

When you have competing systems that reproduce with variation, you'll inevitably end up with a system that will evolve overtime and get more "specialised".

It's what genetic algorithms are all about.

That's what it does. Again, it's the inevitable outcome.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Don't know means no answer.
And we want and NEED an answer. NOW.

You can want and need an answer all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you don't have one.

Inventing one won't help you.

 

[christtoulese]

Here's something that most people don't understand. A theory which is presented ...

Evolution is not a theory.
A theory has to have a basis in experimental fact.
It is wrongly called a theory.
A theory is not the same as a hypothesis. A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation, and from the assumptions of the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory.

Evolution has never been observed.
each year a trillion animals plants bugs and birds reproduce exactly according to therir kind. this is scientific evidence.
National Geographic comes along each ten years with a new fraud missing link.
Evolution has never been observed once. they dont have a missing link
you have been decieved.

 

[christtoulese]

Evolution is not a theory. to call it a theory is outright fraud. and they know it.

Evolution could not happen.

watch this:

if one protein is missing for a tenth of a second the cell dies.
13,000 DIFFERENT proteins each a few billion molecules of each all in one cell
they had to all be suddenly created in a tenth of a second and placed together like a watch to work
Only a fool believes in evolution;

 

[christtoulese]

Out of 13,000 proteins the largest being millions of amino acids precisely placed in exact order, the smallest we know of is INSULIN which is 51 amino acids long.
there are 23 amino acids.
God made the body create only LEVO or left mirrored amino acids
Random chemical reactions without levo ensymes are created both dextro and levo rotatory amino acids or RED and BLUE

the red ones immediately will kill you
the blue ones will work
if random theory created cell
what are the odds of picking 51 amino acids in perfect sequence with 56 possibilities for each amino acid position which if a red on is used will kill the molecule?
ANSWER:
10 to the 71 power.
the waste products made before one good ionsulin molecule is made would fill 7000 billion universes with garbage molecules before one insulin molecule is made

that is one molecule
for a cell to work that has to be done a billion times per cell

and then that has to be done for each 13000 DIFFERENT proteins or hormones

1.7 x 10^ 131 power to make them all be created and it would take, at 5000 replications per second, 1x10^121 lives of the universe to do it
and the cell would die
because to survive it needs all 13,000 molecules simultaneously to work

anyone who believes evolution is an idiot.