Is there any evidence for evolution?

[Loudmouth]

Yet you are here day in and day out trying to do just that.

No, I'm not. I am trying to stop anti-intellectualism from poisoning our society. I am trying to stop knowledge from being sacrificed on the altar of bad religion.

For instance, I'm not going to a Flat Earth site to try to prove earth is round. Why? because I think it's ridiculous, same with outrageous religions or whatever, yet you and others are here arguing what you SAY you think is ridiculous Santa stuff. So that all adds up to your quoted comment being and absolute lie. You DO have the need to explain God away with your nonbiblical fantasies, and try to do just that.

Your actions speak much louder than your words.

If you want to combat the anti-intellectuals, you have to go where the anti-intellectuals are.

 

[lesliedellow]

Notice that you just can't give God credit for what nature does.

So nobody can give me credit for what my computer program does.

 

[mark kennedy]

Notice that you just can't give God credit for what nature does.

Actually it does it's called divine providence. Are you trying to break your own personal reacord for wrong statements in a row?

 

[46AND2]

Hell is full of G.I. Joes.

It has nothing to do with bravery, or pride, either. Fear is a non-factor in what I believe.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, I'm not. I am trying to stop anti-intellectualism from poisoning our society. I am trying to stop knowledge from being sacrificed on the altar of bad religion.



If you want to combat the anti-intellectuals, you have to go where the anti-intellectuals are.

That's a laugh you confro t essential Christian theism and sound doctrine on a forum named Christian. You are anti something but it isn't intellectual is something Christians and Jews ave always believed. Anti faith is more like it.

 

[AV1611VET]

It has nothing to do with bravery, or pride, either. Fear is a non-factor in what I believe.

Hell is full of lemmings.

 

[46AND2]

Hell is full of lemmings.

If I was a lemming, I'd not have left the church, now would I?

 

[USincognito]

I didn't say those things.

Indeed you didn't. I was referring to the typical Creationist response for a useful, scientific definition of "kinds". Sorry for not being more clear.

 

[AdamSK]

I think you attributed quotes to me that you did not intend to.

 

[USincognito]

There are two different languages involved, the Hebrew word for 'kind' is just another word for common ancestry:

מִין mîyn, meen; from an unused root meaning to portion out; a sort, i.e. species:—kind. Compare H4480. Groups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved—not gained. A new species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding occurs. By this definition a new species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of an existing "kind".​

Used of seed bearing plants, Gen. 1:11, 12; Birds, Gen. 1:21; land dwelling creature, Gen. 1:24; Animals wild and domestic, Gen. 1: 25…etc. H4327

That's from an online Lexicon called Blue Letter Bible. Click on the Strong's Number H4327 and it will show you the actual meaning quoted above. It's nearly unbelievable, person A asks for a definition. person B provides a definition, person A complains he wants a definition. Then the whole thing spirals out of control into an abyss of fallacious personal remarks. Person A doesn't have the definition because he ignored it, not because one wasn't provided one.

The word 'genus' is synonymous with origin and 'kind' carries the same meaning. There is a reason this is in my signature:

“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
​

Mendelian Genetics has always shown that there are limits being which complete transformation is limited and Darwinism has always denied it. For former is a science, the latter is a myth.

Have a nice day
Mark

1. Etymology doesn't address the issue, which is a scientifically useful definition of "kinds" that has both explanatory and predictive power.
2. Mendelian genetics doesn't account for mutations. But you know that.

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, I'm not. I am trying to stop anti-intellectualism from poisoning our society.

Oh, I see, you're enlightening us........ooookay.

If you want to combat the anti-intellectuals, you have to go where the anti-intellectuals are.

So, you are an intellectual? If so, how did you come to pin that rose on yourself? Specifically.

 

[lesliedellow]

That's a laugh you confro t essential Christian theism and sound doctrine on a forum named Christian. You are anti something but it isn't intellectual is something Christians and Jews ave always believed. Anti faith is more like it.

One does not have to be an atheist to take note of the anti intellectualism current in evangelical Christianity:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/anti-intellectualism-in-evangelical-christianity.1649352/

 

[AdamSK]

Great, now we have a well-defined claim we can evaluate.

Here are the extant cat genera:
Acinonyx
Caracal
Catopuma
Felis
Leopardus
Leptailurus
Lynx
Otocolobus
Pardofelis
Prionailarus
Puma
Panthera
Neofelis

For each of the thirteen, please provide a specific example for a trait that none of the other twelve could ever develop by mutation and natural selection. Also confirm your agreement that all of the fossils showing common ancestors between members of these genera have been misinterpreted or falsified.

Bump for answers.

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh, I see, you're enlightening us........ooookay.

Your inability to address the evidence shows everyone else what creationism is all about.

So, you are an intellectual? If so, how did you come to pin that rose on yourself? Specifically.

Apparently, you don't understand what anti-intellectualism is, which is a bit ironic.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's a laugh you confro t essential Christian theism and sound doctrine on a forum named Christian. You are anti something but it isn't intellectual is something Christians and Jews ave always believed. Anti faith is more like it.

Creationism is not essential to Christian theism, nor is it sound doctrine. Your fellow Christians are trying to tell you that.

 

[mark kennedy]

One does not have to be an atheist to take note of the anti intellectualism current in evangelical Christianity:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/anti-intellectualism-in-evangelical-christianity.1649352/

Like you would have the intellectual vigor to actually learn anything about it. Trolling CF doesn't make you intellectual reflective thought and diligent study do. Oh and engaged civil discourse which is something you can't be bothered with either. You wouldn't know an intellectual topic if it fell in you lap you would just discard it callously and light the flamethrower.

 

[Loudmouth]

Like you would have the intellectual vigor to actually learn anything about it.

And there is the ad hominem attack when the evidence stacks against creationism.

 

[mark kennedy]

Creationism is not essential to Christian theism, nor is it sound doctrine. Your fellow Christians are trying to tell you that.

I know the New Testament testimony concerning creation and my fellow Christians have believed it for two thousand years and will till Christ returns and God does it again as promised in the Gospel.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Should I "worship" the originals instead?

According to the Ten Commandments you should not worship any of them.

 

[mark kennedy]

And there is the ad hominem attack when the evidence stacks against creationism.

If your superficial treatment of empirical details are any indication when it comes to evangelical theology you don't know much and could care less.