What is the positive evidence FOR creationism?

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

So close - but bobcat and domestic cat are the same species - just different breeds within. Or whatever they want to call that infraspecific taxa.

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. Differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology, or ecological niche. Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae).

So when they get to the point they are incapable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring - they become subspecies - or infraspecific taxa.

There is zero evidence that animals cross species within the Kind - except those incorrectly classified as separate species from the start. Even if we see them interbreed and produce fertile offspring before our eyes.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes.

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

Oh - so when people consciously stick together into related groups by choice it's natural - and when they mate with an individual within that group by choice - its artificial?

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.

It's just a matter of definitions, dude.

You mean I have this way about presenting the truth you now try to avoid?

Definitions, dude - that you are refusing to accept are exactly the same.

In biological taxonomy, race (Latin: prōles, stirps[1]) is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy, below the level of subspecies; the term is recognized by some, but is no longer governed by any of the formal codes of biological nomenclature.

Except you still want to use one that is no longer used in the formal codes any longer. So I would think definitions might be important in defining ones beliefs, no?

EDIT:

Or are you saying the human race is not a species - nor subspecies - but ranked below that?

So a poodle would be a race of the subspecies? of the species?

 

[lasthero]

Oh - so when people consciously stick together into related groups by choice it's natural

It wasn't wholly by choice. Things like geographical location play a huge part the creation of races.

- and when they mate with an individual within that group by choice - its artificial?

When there aren't terribly many different looking people around, there's not much 'choice'. Up until recent history, mankind has been pretty spread out across the globe. How much 'choice' do you have in mates when the nearest person who looks different from you is on an entirely different continent?

In biological taxonomy, race (Latin: prōles, stirps[1]) is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy, below the level of subspecies; the term is recognized by some, but is no longer governed by any of the formal codes of biological nomenclature.

Okay, now post the definition of breed from Wikipedia, which explains what a breed is, and has a list of breeds, which don't include humans.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not the case with humans.

You can't artificially select humans? wasn't that what Hitler was doing?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Just face up to the fact that the confusion in classifications has led to extraordinary errors in the classification system. So that people begin to think they can just make any claims of what things are - because no-one knows what anything is any more.

That people can get away with calling birds or dogs or cats that interbreed and produce fertile offspring right in front of their eyes as separate species - when their own definitions scream at them the exact opposite. And then refuse to correct those mistakes made in classification in the past.

Just as Lions and Tigers are classified as separate species - because at one time it was believed they could not produce fertile offspring. We know better now - yet the classifications never change.

 

[lasthero]

Just face up to the fact that the confusion in classifications has led to extraordinary errors in the classification system. So that people begin to think they can just make any claims of what things are - because no-one knows what anything is any more.

That people can get away with calling birds or dogs or cats that interbreed and produce fertile offspring right in front of their eyes as separate species - when their own definitions scream at them the exact opposite. And then refuse to correct those mistakes made in classification in the past.

Just as Lions and Tigers are classified as separate species - because at one time it was believed they could not produce fertile offspring. We know better now - yet the classifications never change.

Yeah, I don't have the patience to follow you down this rabbit hole today, sorry.

My only point was that humans aren't breeds. Just wanted to clear that up for you.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It wasn't wholly by choice. Things like geographical location play a huge part the creation of races.

Such as bringing two breeds together by disease or terrain instead of man doing it?

When there aren't terribly many different looking people around, there's not much 'choice'. Up until recent history, mankind has been pretty spread out across the globe. How much 'choice' do you have in mates when the nearest person who looks different from you is on an entirely different continent?

So local conditions are altering the species by bringing together disparate breeds in the population that might under other circumstances have only occurred by famine, etc? but results in the same outcome?????

Okay, now post the definition of breed from Wikipedia, which explains what a breed is, and has a list of breeds, which don't include humans.

Because you haven't added the no longer used animal (human) classified as "race" into the breed category. You still choose to call us race - even if it is not the one current biology is using.

 

[TheQuietRiot]

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"

Obviously

Oh please. You are just being offended for the sake of being offended, pretending I have resorted to insults when I clearly explained what I meant and gave you a link.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yeah, I don't have the patience to follow you down this rabbit hole today, sorry.

My only point was that humans aren't breeds. Just wanted to clear that up for you.

Sure we are, or call dogs races - either is fine - but both are capable of mating and producing fertile offspring within their species. Now being a seeker you should understand that the biological classification has nothing to do with that dominion we were given. It is that which separates us - not any difference in the dust from which all came.

I.e. we were given something no animal was - but biologically we are made from the same things all life was - even the very matter the universe is made up of. Yet we move and breath and reproduce - while the rest lies inert.

That image is knowledge (mind/consciousness)

 

[TheQuietRiot]

So why not debate on the scientific information brought up

Well frankly, its a waste of time.

There is nothing to gain by convincing you of the validity of evolution, if that is even possible.

 

[lasthero]

Such as bringing two breeds together by disease or terrain instead of man doing it?

If it happens naturally, it's natural.

So local conditions are altering the species by bringing together disparate breeds in the population that might under other circumstances have only occurred by famine, etc? but results in the same outcome?????

Humans spread out across the globe, they become isolated, they become distinct. It's not a complicated process, and it's not artificial selection.

Because you haven't added the no longer used animal (human) classified as "race" into the breed category. You still choose to call us race

Not just me - pretty much everyone besides you. Can you find any scientist anywhere who refers to humans as 'breeds'?

 

[lasthero]

Sure we are, or call dogs races - either is fine

Either is not fine - they have different defintions. That's why races and breeds are under different pages in Wikipedia. They're not the same thing.

I.e. we were given something no animal was - but biologically we are made from the same things all life was - even the very matter the universe is made up of. Yet we move and breath and reproduce - while the rest lies insert.

I think you mean 'inert'. You're using that word wrong, too. But whatever.

 

[justlookinla]

Well, over the years the argument has cropped up in hundreds of threads that I've read.

Hence why its a point refuted a thousand times.

A meaningless claim without at least one reference where it's actually been refuted with evidence.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total quantity of matter and energy in the universe is constant. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy always tend to change from complex and ordered states to disordered states. Therefore the universe could not have created itself, but could not have existed forever, or it would have run down long ago. Thus the universe, including matter and energy, apparently must have been created.

This isn't positive evidence for creationism, it is simply a statement that this universe is winding down. I think you're arguing from the basis of a poorly defined position.

What exactly do you mean by "created"?

 

[mickiio]

This isn't positive evidence for creationism, it is simply a statement that this universe is winding down. I think you're arguing from the basis of a poorly defined position.

It is an evidence for Creationism because Creationism supports the Law. Some theories do not.

What exactly do you mean by "created"?

Created - Creation - by a Creator intelligent & organized

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If it happens naturally, it's natural.

Then we can disregard all your claims that mutation in the laboratory shows evolution - since it is not natural???? This is what you are agreeing to is it not with this claim?

Humans spread out across the globe, they become isolated, they become distinct. It's not a complicated process, and it's not artificial selection.

Joe "chooses" to mate with Mary. There were no natural happenings to bring them together - they chose to mate unlike the animals which are controlled by pheromones. You can't even compare the two, yet in your Fairie Dust beliefs you try anyways.

Not just me - pretty much everyone besides you. Can you find any scientist anywhere who refers to humans as 'breeds'?

Exactly - because even if you claim we are animals - you don't really want us to be - but want us to be special. So you make up a classification just for the human race - even if you then claim we came from monkeys - yet you refuse to accept that monkeys are races of animals.

You are inconsistent and have in the end only a self-contradictory belief system that you can never defend - except with strawmen.

And your claim that none do so holds no water - since those same people see Darwin's Finches interbreeding before their very eyes and yet will not admit to that mistake in classification either. So in the end all it tells us is that you wouldn't admit to a mistake if it was right in front of your eyes.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Either is not fine - they have different defintions. That's why races and breeds are under different pages in Wikipedia. They're not the same thing.

And this means what? They also classify Darwin's Finches as separate species - even if they interbreed and produce fertile offspring right in front of their eyes. Yours too - but you are going to ignore what we empirically observe in favor of what you are told, yes? Can't reason for yourself?

I think you mean 'inert'. You're using that word wrong, too. But whatever.

Probably why I corrected it from insert to inert too - is this your entire strawman argument? But whatever.

 

[lasthero]

And this means what? They also classify Darwin's Finches as separate species - even if they interbreed and produce fertile offspring right in front of their eyes. Yours too - but you are going to ignore what we empirically observe in favor of what you are told, yes? Can't reason for yourself?

Like I said, I just wanted to correct you on the breeds things, since you seemed confused. I'm not in the mood to deal with your other nonsense, sorry.

Probably why I corrected it from insert to inert too - is this your entire strawman argument? But whatever.

What argument? I just corrected you, was all. And just because something is nonliving doesn't nescessarily mean it's inert.

 

[lasthero]

Then we can disregard all your claims that mutation in the laboratory shows evolution - since it is not natural???? This is what you are agreeing to is it not with this claim?

I made no such claims. I swear, it's like you read things that nobody has actually written.

Joe "chooses" to mate with Mary. There were no natural happenings to bring them together - they chose to mate unlike the animals which are controlled by pheromones.

Humans are controlled by pheromones, too, and not all animals chose mates based on other ones. Regardless, being attracted to someone is not the same articifical selection and breeding. When you're breeding, you're deliberately selecting mates to create a specific outcome out of progeny. When human beings split up and made races, they were intentionally trying to do it. Intent is the important part.

You can't even compare the two, yet in your Fairie Dust

You really want that to be a catchphrase, don't you?

Exactly - because even if you claim we are animals[/quotes]


Humans are animals by definition.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Like I said, I just wanted to correct you on the breeds things, since you seemed confused. I'm not in the mood to deal with your other nonsense, sorry.

But you just showed instead that you classify things willy-nilly. If humans are a "race" - then monkeys are a "race". If monkey's are "breeds", then humans are "breeds.

You have no rationalization to make any other claims.

Yes - nonsense is the word most people use when their beliefs are being challenged by facts.

I made no such claims. I swear, it's like you read things that nobody has actually written.

Does not need to be written - it is an express implication.

If we can not use dogs to determine evolution because man caused it, then we can not use laboratory experiments in which man caused the results thereof.

Your claims are contradictory in both cases and so can reasonably be ignored as having any validity.

Humans are controlled by pheromones, too, and not all animals chose mates based on other ones. Regardless, being attracted to someone is not the same articifical selection and breeding. When you're breeding, you're deliberately selecting mates to create a specific outcome out of progeny. When human beings split up and made races, they were intentionally trying to do it. Intent is the important part.

You really want that to be a catchphrase, don't you?

That's just it. It does not matter if it's intentional or accidental - only the time-frame of when matters.

Whether two groups of peoples choose to come together and mate - or nature forces them together and they mate - the end result is the same. One simply happens on a different time-frame than the other. Which is why dogs show you the natural and distinct variation that can occur in infraspacific taxa. I don't really care if you want to call them "breeds, races, hybrids, subspecies, formae, subvarieties or varieties, or whatever term you want to apply on any given day to that infraspecific taxa.

"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

Which still does not excuse you from thinking that birds, dogs, cats or whatever that are interbreeding and producing fertile offspring right in front of your eyes - can even be remotely thought of as separate species. Unless of course we all pretend species is not defined as just that.

So this is your chance to prove that we should accept their (and apparently your) classifications of anything. So link to your "scientific definition" of species - and lets see if your/their claims hold up to their/your own definitions.

I want to know your scientific reason for believing that birds that interbreed and produce fertile offspring are separate species?