What is the positive evidence FOR creationism?

[lasthero]

But you just showed instead that you classify things willy-nilly.

I didn't classify anything.

You have no rationalization to make any other claims

I never made any such claims.

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

You can put words in my mouth and argue against that all you like. Little weird, though.

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.



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 own definitions.

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

Sigh.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I didn't classify anything.

I never made any such claims.

You can put words in my mouth and argue against that all you like. Little weird, though.

Sigh.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed

So "breed" is your scientific definition of species??????

"A breed is a specific group of domestic animals having homogeneous appearance (phenotype), homogeneous behavior, and/or other characteristics that distinguish it from other organisms of the same species"

Or did you mean race?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology)

"Races may be genetically distinct phenotypic populations of interbreeding individuals within the same species"

So whether you choose to call the same thing different names is irrelevant. Race is used to distinguish those populations of the same species - as is breeds. Names change the meanings not one bit. All are infraspecific taxa of the species.

Your strawmen are useless. I expect the ad-hominem attacks will arrive shortly. The "sigh" put upon me routine works not at all either but in your own mind.

Which is why you patently avoided what I asked for. Your scientific reason for believing birds that interbreed and produce fertile offspring are separate species? I understand your entire belief system is wrapped up into that subject and is why you avoid it, but until you are willing to admit you have no scientific claim to make any claims about species because you wont accept the scientific definition you claim to follow. It's all rather pointless.

 

[lasthero]

So "breed" is your scientific definition of species??????

"A breed is a specific group of domestic animals having homogeneous appearance (phenotype), homogeneous behavior, and/or other characteristics that distinguish it from other organisms of the same species"

Or did you mean race?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology)

"Races may be genetically distinct phenotypic populations of interbreeding individuals within the same species"

So whether you choose to call the same thing different names is irrelevant. Race is used to distinguish those populations of the same species - as is breeds. Names change the meanings not one bit. All are infraspecific taxa of the species.

Your strawmen are useless. I expect the ad-hominem attacks will arrive shortly. The "sigh" put upon me routine works not at all either but in your own mind.

Which is why you patently avoided what I asked for. Your scientific reason for believing birds that interbreed and produce fertile offspring are separate species? I understand your entire belief system is wrapped up into that subject and is why you avoid it, but until you are willing to admit you have no scientific claim to make any claims about species because you wont accept the scientific definition you claim to follow. It's all rather pointless.

We're off topic enough as it is. Just read the link if you want to understand why no one refers to humans as 'breeds'.

Or don't.

 

[Black Dog]

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

Created - Creation - by a Creator intelligent & organized

You haven't provided any positive evidence that this is the case, you have only provided assertions that this is the case.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You haven't provided any positive evidence that this is the case, you have only provided assertions that this is the case.

Versus what - your claims that all life doesn't get old and die? It clearly follows the thermodynamic laws of entropy - no matter how much energy you continue to put into the system. There is no evolution - only infraspecific taxa mating with infraspecific taxa producing new infraspecific taxa. We must ignore all of nature to make claims of evolution. Must ignore the natural variation that occurs when infraspecific taxa mate - and instead pretend its only when things mutate from one to another.

Asian mates with African and produces an Afro-Asian. Husky mates with Mastiff and produces the Chinook. In neither case of infraspecific taxa mating with other infraspecific taxa within the species - are their missing links nor evolution involved. It all occurred by the natural process of the recombination of genes and new dominant and recessive traits. Nothing transitory in form is missing between any of them.

Why must we ignore how all of nature propagates in order to consider your theory?

EDIT:
You have never observed an Asian or African mutate into anything let alone into an Afro-Asian, nor a Husky or Mastiff mutate into anything, let alone into a Chinook. Why must we then pretend it happened that way in the past, instead of fitting the fossil record to our observations of the present?

 

[Black Dog]

EDIT:
You have never observed an Asian or African mutate into anything let alone into an Afro-Asian, nor a Husky or Mastiff mutate into anything, let alone into a Chinook. Why must we then pretend it happened that way in the past, instead of fitting the fossil record to our observations of the present?

If you think evolution says you can observe a dog mutating into a fish, you lack even the most rudimentary understanding of the Theory of Evolution. Please don't take offense, but this is literally like trying to discuss Calculus with someone who doesn't know how to add 1 + 1. You need to go and learn what the Theory of Evolution actually says.

 

[justlookinla]

You need to go and learn what the Theory of Evolution actually says.

What does it actually say?

 

[Black Dog]

What does it actually say?

It certainly doesn't say you can observe a dog turning into a fish. Quite the opposite in fact.

You can start by reading Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin.

 

[justlookinla]

It certainly doesn't say you can observe a dog turning into a fish. Quite the opposite in fact.

You can start by reading Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin.

Well, that's not an answer, that's evasion.

Certain views of evolution (Darwinism) does have some life form from long ago (unknown) 'turning into' a pine tree and human though. And a fish. And an elephant. And a coconut. Etc.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Really? Where? And please, if you quote mine I will take that as an admission that you are wrong. Quotes must be linked to the original source.

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.

Those were claims by individuals but never the "dogma" of the science. You do not seem to understand what the word "dogma" means. Yes, scientists have been wrong in the past. And they will be wrong in the future. You do not seem to appreciate the fact that as time goes on in any subject the errors keep getting smaller and smaller as the correct answer is neared.

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.

Then you do not understand the ignorance of creationists. It is not that scientists are privy to some arcane knowledge that creationists cannot understand. The problem is that creationists won't let themselves understand the evidence. Most of them refuse to even learn the concept of scientific evidence, a very very powerful scientific tool.

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.

I am very sure that you cannot point to any internal inconsistencies in evolution. Right now you are just making up false claims that you cannot justify.

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.

You are correct that the theory of evolution is not that difficult to understand. The problem is that creationists will not let themselves understand the theory. They are willfully ignorant. And whether one is ignorant due to lack of education or willfully ignorant the result is the same. One has to be ignorant or dishonest to deny the theory of evolution. You have yet to bring up anything of substance against the theory of evolution so I cannot give you a concrete example, but I assure you from years of experience that you will demonstrate some sort of ignorance if you try to do so, or worse dishonest, or both.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Please, that was a request for honesty on your part too. And I did not "call" you anything. I pointed out what your actions were. There is an important difference between the two.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, that's not an answer, that's evasion.

Certain views of evolution (Darwinism) does have some life form from long ago (unknown) 'turning into' a pine tree and human though. And a fish. And an elephant. And a coconut. Etc.

Actually it was an answer. Your claim showed that you have no understanding of the theory that you hate so much.

And yes, the distant ancestors of ancient life did eventually evolve into different forms of life. You don't seem to understand that that is a one way trip. There is no "evolving back".

 

[justlookinla]

Actually it was an answer. Your claim showed that you have no understanding of the theory that you hate so much.

No, it was a 'go look at this' type of response which is so typical from Darwinists.

And yes, the distant ancestors of ancient life did eventually evolve into different forms of life. You don't seem to understand that that is a one way trip. There is no "evolving back".

You don't seem to understand the process which Darwinism claims produced those life forms isn't based on anything but guesses and suppositions.

 

[Black Dog]

No, it was a 'go look at this' type of response which is so typical from Darwinists.

It sincerely wasn't that kind of post. You are just looking through the lens of a creationist, where everything can be explained by one word: "Magic". The Theory of Evolution is the basis of modern biology, and certainly can't be adequately explained in a post on a Christian forum.

Learning the TOE will require a sincere effort on your part. Before I spend my time trying to help you learn it, I need to know if you willing to put in that effort.

 

[justlookinla]

It sincerely wasn't that kind of post. You are just looking through the lens of a creationist, where everything can be explained by one word: "Magic". The Theory of Evolution is the basis of modern biology, and certainly can't be adequately explained in a post on a Christian forum.

Learning the TOE will require a sincere effort on your part. Before I spend my time trying to help you learn it, I need to know if you willing to put in that effort.

If you're having a problem stating what your view of evolution is, simply say so.

 

[Black Dog]

Actually it was an answer. Your claim showed that you have no understanding of the theory that you hate so much.

And yes, the distant ancestors of ancient life did eventually evolve into different forms of life. You don't seem to understand that that is a one way trip. There is no "evolving back".

There is much work to be done. He also thinks the TOE says we can watch a specific dog mutate into a fish. (See post #668)

 

[Black Dog]

If you're having a problem stating what your view of evolution is, simply say so.

Again you misunderstand. It's not "my view" of evolution. It is a Theory which is the basis of modern biology, one that is used as the basis for much of our modern pharmacy, one that is used by literally tens of thousands of scientists every day.

You should consider learning about the TOE before posting again. If someone was making posts about why calculus doesn't work, and they freely admitted they don't know how to add two numbers together, what would you think? That's exactly what you are doing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it was a 'go look at this' type of response which is so typical from Darwinists.


You don't seem to understand the process which Darwinism claims produced those life forms isn't based on anything but guesses and suppositions.

You can keep repeating that error, but no one will take you seriously. Perhaps if you learned what scientific evidence is you might be able to understand the theory of evolution.

 

[justlookinla]

Again you misunderstand. It's not "my view" of evolution. It is a Theory which is the basis of modern biology, one that is used as the basis for much of our modern pharmacy, one that is used by literally tens of thousands of scientists every day.

That's certainly one view of evolution but it's not the only view of evolution. There's view of evolution which produced pine trees and humanity through a theistic process and then there's a view of evolution which produced pine trees and humans through an entirely naturalistic process. Some views of evolution are based on the scientific method, other views of evolution are based on guesses and suppositions (Darwinism).

The form of evolution which produced many of our pharmaceutical advances (and unfortunately the detrimental pharmaceuticals also), has a basis in the scientific method, albeit flawed at times. This form of evolution doesn't care one whit about the pseudo-science of the evolution which claims that pine trees and humans were produced by entirely naturalistic mechanisms (Darwinist evolution) or any form of theistic evolution which makes claims concerning the process which created pine trees and humans. Pharmaceutical experimentation has bacteria becoming bacteria for example, not new life forms as claimed in other forms of evolution.

You should consider learning about the TOE before posting again. If someone was making posts about why calculus doesn't work, and they freely admitted they don't know how to add two numbers together, what would you think? That's exactly what you are doing.

And of course you're not going to explain your view of evolution, whichever form of the several evolutionary views available which you embrace.

 

[justlookinla]

You can keep repeating that error, but no one will take you seriously. Perhaps if you learned what scientific evidence is you might be able to understand the theory of evolution.

please study this. Think about it. It'll help you understand scientific evidence.