Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[lesliedellow]

Not at all. I prefer testable provable & verifiable sciences that DON'T go against the LAWS of sciences like the Laws of Physics, II Law of Thermodynamics and Laws of Mathematics and probabilities.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: "The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."

 

[mickiio]

Yes. Few creationists have learned what a species is. And, they have trusted people who lie to them about nonsense like "Kinds" or barimology.

The bible has not led me wrong yet and it doesn't "lie". "Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive." Genesis 6:20 Do you mean Baraminology ? Isn't it interesting that God has His own classification system before the modern sciences did?

Then you have no problem with evolutionary biology.

Microevolution and Natural Selection I have no problem with. When you make the leap and
extrapolate the good sciences of micro into macro with fairy dust -- then I have a problem.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not at all. I prefer testable provable & verifiable sciences that DON'T go against the LAWS of sciences like the Laws of Physics, II Law of Thermodynamics and Laws of Mathematics and probabilities.

You haven't shown how evolution goes against any of those laws.

 

[Loudmouth]

The bible has not led me wrong yet and it doesn't "lie". "Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive." Genesis 6:20 Do you mean Baraminology ? Isn't it interesting that God has His own classification system before the modern sciences did?

Are gorillas and chimps in the same ape kind? Yes/no?

Microevolution and Natural Selection I have no problem with. When you make the leap and
extrapolate the good sciences of micro into macro with fairy dust -- then I have a problem.

What fairy dust?

 

[justlookinla]

Here is were you start reading;
Layman list;
Dalrymple, G. Brent
2005 “Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies: The age of the earth and its cosmic surroundings” Berkley: University of California Press

Deamer, David W.
2011 “First Life: Discovering the Connections between Stars, Cells, and How Life Began” University of California Press

Carroll, Sean B.
2006 “The Making of the Fittest” New York: Norton

Shubin, Neal
2008 “Your Inner Fish” New York: Pantheon Books

Prothero, Donald.
2007 "Evolution: What The Fossils Say and Why It Matters" Colombia University Press.

Professional list;
Dickin, Alan P.
2000 “Radiogenic Isotope Geology” Cambridge University Press

Schopf, William (editor)
2002 "Life's Origin: The Beginnings of Biological Evolution" University of California Press
(in addition to Deamer's 2011 book)

Valentine, James W.
2005 “On the Origin of Phyla” University of Chicago Press

Erwin, Douglas H., James W. Valentine
2013 "The Cambrian Explosion: The Construction of Animal Diversity" New York: Roberts and Company Publishers

Carroll, Robert L.
1998 “Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution” New York: Cambridge University Press

I am more than happy to walk you through these starting at the top of either the professional, or the layman versions. I selected layman books for readability, and those that avoid as much as possible pointing out the failure of creationism.

Isn't the web full of the information asked for?

Now, please., stop avoiding the issue. Actually offer evidence, based on the scientific method, that only natural selection produced humanity from an alleged single life form of long ago.

 

[justlookinla]

But if they can't interbreed, they are two different species of fruit flies.

If creationists want to tell themselves lies, that's fine, but they could at least spare the rest of us their nonsense.

They are still fruit flies. Now, contrast that with the faith-based view that only naturalistic mechanisms produced humanity from an alleged single life form of long ago. One is based on the scientific method, the other isn't.

 

[justlookinla]

You haven't shown how evolution goes against any of those laws.

Darwinist evolution, one of the several views of evolution, goes against the scientific method. Well....it ignores the scientific method for the 'how'.

 

[lesliedellow]

What fairy dust?

By the sound of it, he has been reading Professor Justa's monumental work on fairie dust.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Isn't the web full of the information asked for?

Now, please., stop avoiding the issue. Actually offer evidence, based on the scientific method, that only natural selection produced humanity from an alleged single life form of long ago.

You asked and I answered. You prefer ignorance- as I suspected.

 

[justlookinla]

By the sound of it, he has been reading Professor Justa's monumental work on fairie dust.

What fairie dust?

 

[justlookinla]

You asked and I answered. You prefer ignorance- as I suspected.

You gave titles of books, a favorite evasive tactic of those who can't offer evidence themselves. Surely there's a wealth of information on the web you can give, isn't it? No? Well, isn't that amazing?

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

You gave titles of books, a favorite evasive tactic of those who can't offer evidence themselves. Surely there's a wealth of information on the web you can give, isn't it? No? Well, isn't that amazing?

Why not just admit you are not interested? Save everybody the time wasted reading your posts.

 

[justlookinla]

Why not just admit you are not interested? Save everybody the time wasted reading your posts.

Why not just admit you have no evidence to offer. Everyone can see you're nothing but full of empty claims void of content.

 

[lesliedellow]

Why not just admit you have no evidence to offer. Everyone can see you're nothing but full of empty claims void of content.

All you are displaying is your taste for wilful ignorance. If you want to know what the evidence is, do some serious research, instead of demanding that somebody squeeze 150 years worth of scientific research into a couple of sentences.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Why not just admit you have no evidence to offer. Everyone can see you're nothing but full of empty claims void of content.

 

[justlookinla]

All you are displaying is your taste for wilful ignorance. If you want to know what the evidence is, do some serious research, instead of demanding that somebody squeeze 150 years worth of scientific research into a couple of sentences.

If you wish to claim the 'how' is something more than faith-based guesses and suppositions, offer the evidence based on the scientific method. You're not going to do that though, you'll simply evade as you've been doing so far in this thread.

 

[justlookinla]

And again, a response full of evasion and void of content. That's all you have.

 

[mickiio]

Are gorillas and chimps in the same ape kind? Yes/no?

No the ape IS the "kind" classification. Chimpanzee is a species.

What fairy dust?

Fairie Dust - Fabricated Ad-hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Effort to Defend Untenable Scientific Theory.
Justatruthseeker

 

[lesliedellow]

Are gorillas and chimps in the same ape kind? Yes/no?

No the ape IS the "kind" classification. Chimpanzee is a species.

That answer doesn't make sense, even by your own dubious standards. So, to repeat Loudmouth's question, are Gorillas and Chimpanzees of the same kind?

 

[mickiio]

That answer doesn't make sense, even by your own dubious standards. So, to repeat Loudmouth's question, are Gorillas and Chimpanzees of the same kind?

Gorillas or Apes? There is a difference you know. Maybe you should educate yourself on classifications. My statement stands.