What is the positive evidence FOR creationism?

[AV1611VET]

The example I like to use for this is "To say microevolution is proven but not macroevolution is like saying I can drive my car to my friends house down the street but it's impossible for me to drive across the country to visit my grandma".

Except macroevolution doesn't stop there.

It goes much further.

Macroevolution states that the destination is genetically linked to the source.

Your friend's house down the street is not linked to your grandma's house across the country.

 

[ContraMundum]

What are you talking about? There are all sorts of intermediary froms.

OK......I've seen lots and lots of stuff presented as/deemed to be intermediary forms...but none of them "proves" evolution to me. There are other explanations.

I mean, you do know that honest evolutionists (not internet groupies, but actual published and peer reviewed authors) have posited this as a problem, right? I'm not making this up.

Now you have shown your ignorance again. There is hardly any "dogma" in evolution. It only looks that way to the ignorant because it is very likely that the theory is correct.

There's plenty of dogma in science, surely you have to be prepared to admit that. It's known that often science has claimed something as "true" without sufficient evidence. Physics was declared finished in 1903 and again in 1928. Up until the the '60s some scientists said nothing could be smaller than particles. Paleontologists taught stuff for years that was plain wrong. Right now there are plenty of dogmas- that will change.

What really bugs me is this constant appeal to "knowledge" that somehow only evolutionists are privy to and only they understand. Everyone else is "ignorant". Really does nothing but make me lose respect for the person making that appeal.

There is a phenomenon in religion that is parallel to this kind of thing. Every dogmatic system in any given religion is internally consistent. So, for people that study Lutheranism for example, everything fits nicely into that box and it all works perfectly in the box. People with other points of view (eg. Reformed) can point to holes in that system but ultimately they will be told they are ignorant or just misunderstand the "truth". The evolution debate fits perfectly here. Evolution works perfectly (for internet groupies especially) because they understand the tight, neat consistent system. The trouble is that it is only consistent internally. Ask them to fill in the large gaps and they either admit there's more work to do or they play the "you're ignorant" card- which is maxed out. The line of credit on that card is kaput.

Understand this: evolutionary theory is not intellectually beyond the means of a high school kid. Some of the most ordinary minds I have encountered are very well qualified evolution adherents with science degrees. I'm not that impressed when someone with an internally consistent system can't handle critique from an outsider without playing the "you're just too dumb" card. It's best to not be like Dawkins who is so in love with human knowledge (especially his own) that it is really the only thing that matters to him. A fertile mind might be impressive to hear from but it could be just full of fertilizer.

What do you mean here? You don't seem to realize that a global flood (which is part of a literal interpretation of Genesis) was shown to be wrong long before the theory of evolution came along.

No, I wasn't referring to that. Not important.

 

[ContraMundum]

Then don't make foolish replies that beg for such a response.

OK...so thus far you've called me ignorant and a fool. Hmm. Noted.

 

[AV1611VET]

OK...so thus far you've called me ignorant and a fool. Hmm. Noted.

Weez awl ignits in theys eyes.

Wee hoamskoode foaks.

 

[mickiio]

I didn't say, or even imply that your rear end is dumb.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=prat
Well...... since that is the "top definition, it wasn't much of a leap to take it that way. But go ahead cowboy, keep backstrokin

point refuted a thousand times.

And if you spend long enough on this forum you will have seen the macro vs micro point has satisfied this criteria.

Whose? Yours or mine?

 

[lasthero]

Nope.

I don't know is not a statement of faith.

That doesn't answer my question.

How do you determine if two animals are the same 'kind'?

 

[TheQuietRiot]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=prat
Well...... since that is the "top definition, it wasn't much of a leap to take it that way. But go ahead cowboy, keep backstrokin

There is no backstroking.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Point_refuted_a_thousand_times

Notice how in the original post I didn't type prat but PRATT.

Whose? Yours or mine?

Mine, obviously.

 

[TheQuietRiot]

That doesn't answer my question.

How do you determine if two animals are the same 'kind'?

I think you quoted the wrong message

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What is the actual positive objective evidence FOR creationism?

I see lots of creationists trying to poke holes in alternate theories, but I don't see any objective evidence for creationism. Is there any? If so, what is it?

All the evidence is right before your eyes - but evolutionist's ignore it.

If Asian mates with Asian - an Asian is produced. If African mates with African - an African is produced. If Asian mates with African - an Afro-Asian is produced. This is how variation comes into the species - from breed mating with breed producing new breeds within that species.

And is why all Triceratops remain Triceratops - from the youngest fossil found in time to the oldest fossil found in time of that breed.

So that when you classify the fossil record - you ignore that all life propagates by breed mating with breed producing new breeds - but always within that species. Instead you classify them incorrectly as different species - not as we know by direct empirical observation. So that these:

Are in actuality merely different breeds of the same species (matching all observations of the natural world around us) and not separate species.

They are merely what we list them as when we know what their lineage is.

So you of course incorrectly classify fossils of animals you have never observed in life as separate species (because they look a little different) - when all observations of living animals goes directly in opposition to those claims.

You will go so far as to ignore the actual science - that you will attempt to claim that birds that interbreed are separate species - all so you don't have to admit to a mistake in classification. Even if your own scientific definition of species tells you they are the same species.

I'm still waiting for validation of any of the claims made by evolutionist's? Mutations merely make changes within the individual breeds (Asian / African / etc) on "rare" occasions. It is always breed mating with breed in which new breeds or true variation occurs. Nothing mutates by evolution from one to another. There are no missing links missing. Nothing we need to pretend, except to quit pretending that everything is a separate species.

And what they don't have incorrectly classified from different breeds - the rest are likely incorrect classifications of babies and adults.

 

[mickiio]

There is no backstroking.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Point_refuted_a_thousand_times

Notice how in the original post I didn't type prat but PRATT.




Mine, obviously.

Ahh so now I'm "just stupid" - gotcha. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pratt&defid=1202659

The Meaning of PRATT
PRATT means "Stupid person"

 

[lasthero]

If Asian mates with Asian - an Asian is produced. If African mates with African - an African is produced. If Asian mates with African - an Afro-Asian is produced. This is how variation comes into the species - from breed mating with breed producing new breeds within that species.

Africans and Asians aren't different breeds of humans.

 

[mickiio]

Mine, obviously.

Obviously

So why not debate on the scientific information brought up, instead of resorting to insults?

 

[lasthero]

No it's the scientific classification. Here's an example:

That doesn't answer the question.

How do you tell whether two animals are the same kind or not?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Africans and Asians aren't different breeds of humans.

Sure they are - we just call it "race" instead of "breed" because we wouldn't be special otherwise - but just an animal, which we are supposed to be anyways - aren't we? So the Asian "race" and African "race" produce the Afro-Asian "race".

And still there was no evolution by mutation - nor any links missing. You could at least be consistent in calling us a breed or calling those breeds races. Make up your mind what you want to classify those breeds or races as????

 

[lasthero]

Sure they are - we just call it "race" instead of "breed" because we wouldn't be special otherwise - but just an animal, which we are supposed to be anyways - aren't we? So the Asian "race" and African "race" produce the Afro-Asian "race".

Race and breed are not synonymous.

Breeds are typically made by artificial selection. That's not the case with humans. Breeds are 'bred' - that's why they're call 'breeds', in the first place.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That doesn't answer the question.

How do you tell whether two animals are the same kind or not?

Well, let's look at their definition:

A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms where two hybrids are capable of reproducing fertile offspring, typically using sexual reproduction. While in many cases this definition is adequate, the difficulty of defining species is known as the species problem.

Quick aside to the post of mine above we can add the term "hybrid" to "race" and "Breed"

In let's say Darwin's Finches in which we have now observed them all interbreeding and producing fertile offspring - it is quite adequate - unless we refuse to accept what is happening before our eyes. Even the DNA data corroborated that they have been doing so since arriving on the islands. Speciation never occurred - nor the conditions required.

Now perhaps if one didn't observe them mating and producing fertile offspring - one might then need other means to differentiate between species. Or a problem in classification might occur. But no ambiguity exists, yet they refuse to admit to such a tiny mistake in classification - because these Finches were their prime claims to speciation.

 

[mickiio]

That doesn't answer the question.

How do you tell whether two animals are the same kind or not?

The family level of scientific classification. I like to use "kinds" because that's what the bible calls them : "Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate" Gen. 7:2

Science supports the bible.

But "technically" it is "family". Simple biology. Every animal is classified. There is Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species

There is zero evidence that animals cross families. Species yes. You can have a bobcat with a domestic cat.

 

[lasthero]

The family level of scientific classification.

That doesn't really answer the question.

Above the species level, classification is pretty much abritrary. There is no hard definition as to what classifies a family. It's grouping for convenience.

But you're using 'kinds' like there's a hard line that seperates them, but there's no such line with 'family'

So, I ask again, how do you tell if two animals are the same 'kind' or not?

There is zero evidence that animals cross families. Species yes. You can have a bobcat with a domestic cat.

You can't cross a tiger with a domestic cat, but they're the same family.

You can't cross a fox with a domestic dog, but they're the same family.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Race and breed are not synonymous.

Breeds are typically made by artificial selection. That's not the case with humans. Breeds are 'bred' - that's why they're call 'breeds', in the first place.

The difference between two dogs mating and two humans, besides the means of how it came about? If man had not intervened, it simply might have taken much longer for those different breeds to come together is all. You are just seeing how it occurs in an accelerated pattern - just like if we do the same thing with bacteria in the lab - which you seem to think then means it supports evolution even if it is artificially induced??? Wait, what are you arguing exactly????????

Make up your mind. Are artificially induced variations implying evolution or not implying evolution?

Are you claiming the Asian race did not come about through selective breeding? That those with specific features did not tend to stick together and continue to propagate their breed? If we are monkeys in the past then the only thing different is we are not domesticated.

What - now suddenly we are above the animals - maybe in a special place so that we are race and they are breed?

 

[lasthero]

Are you claiming the Asian race did not come about through selective breeding?

Yes.

That those with specific features did not tend to stick together and continue to propagate their breed?

That's not artificial selection, that's natural selection. There was no deliberate breeding involved.

What - now suddenly we are above the animals

You have this weird way of putting words in people's mouth, then arguing against what you want them to say instead of what they actually said.

- maybe in a special place so that we are race and they are breed?

It's just a matter of definitions, dude.