proving evolution as just a "theory"

[rjs330]

It doesn't indicate otherwise either as far a I can see.

It indicates that all things were created by kinds. Myriads of kinds from the start. It's exactly the opposite of what evolution claims.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Scripture does not address itself to the question.



So "Kinds" = "Orders." Is that your final answer? We have another creationists who posts here sometimes who maintains that "Kinds" = "Family." What is your comment on that?

And?

So according to one evolutionists species are those that mate and produce fertile offspring. No, according to another they are those that share a common ecological niche. No, according to another they are those that share common physical traits, like coloration. No, according to another they are those that share a geographical region. No, according to another........

But just maybe if they were consistent on where they drew the division for order or family or even species, we could ourselves be More consistent, since we are forced to use your classification system, which is not consistently. How are you going to complain about others, for that which you yourself can not do consistently?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It indicates that all things were created by kinds. Myriads of kinds from the start. It's exactly the opposite of what evolution claims.

That’s why every fossil found of any type always remains the same for that type from the oldest found to the youngest found.

And as I have been trying to get them to accept observation. As Husky mates with Mastiff and produces the new variation of the Chinook; so fossil A mated with Fossil B and the new variation fossil C appeared. As neither Husky nor Mastiff evolved into the Chinook, so did neither fossil A nor fossil B evolve into fossil C.

They simply can’t observe what mated with what from a pile of bones, but that is no reason to ignore the observational data of how new variations come into existence.

But they tend to ignore all dogs ate of one kind, despite the sometimes sharp variations in appearances.

I would have used Asian mating with African producing the Afro-Asian as an example, but wouldn’t want to be accused of racism by crybabies that can’t handle their own medicine thrown back in their face. Not addressed to you. They know who they are.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So you do have a common ancestor? You do have a way of showing an order evolving into a different Order? You have a way of reproducing such a thing? You have a way of testing it? I think you are the ones in denial.

Not denial, cognitive dissonance.

I’ve been asking for a single common ancestor for any claimed split on any evolutionary tree for years. Still waiting.

But they can show you finches mating with other finches producing more finches, and call them separate species as long as they ignore the scientific deffinition of subspecies.

 

[pitabread]

So you do have a common ancestor? You do have a way of showing an order evolving into a different Order? You have a way of reproducing such a thing? You have a way of testing it? I think you are the ones in denial.

Answering these questions (some which are a bit nonsensical) would involve actually learning more about science, biology and in particular evolutionary theory. For example, I tried to get into how hypotheses in science are tested and thus answering your continued refrain about evolution not being testable. But you appear to have completely ignored it and thus continue to repeat the same mantra over and over.

You appear to have little to no desire to actually learning anything here and just continue to repeat your denialism over and over.

 

[pitabread]

It indicates that all things were created by kinds. Myriads of kinds from the start. It's exactly the opposite of what evolution claims.

And yet when trying to get creationists to provide a proper model on which to work from the original "created kinds", it's like pulling teeth and they ultimately come up empty. Every. Single. Time.

 

[pitabread]

no. my claim is that this sequence is conserve (compare to other genes)=therefore its important. see the difference?

We've already been over this. Talking about conservation of genetic sequences only makes sense within the context of having a defined starting point (i.e. a common genome) and a mechanism actually conserving them (i.e. natural selection).

You don't have either of these from a design perspective. Under design what you are comparing is just similarities, not actually evolutionary conservation.

no. again: i gave you the sponge example. both sponge and human geneomes are very similar (even that they are so diffierent from morphological perspective). so we can predict that even under the design model many different creature should be very similar to each other at their beginning point.

This isn't a prediction. You have no way of determining what the relative similarities or differences would be. For all you know, a designer created everything with the exact same relative similarity and dissimilarity between genetic sequences that we observe today. In which case, relative similarity doesn't tell us anything by itself.

If you're going to assume the starting genomes would be "nearly identical", all you're doing is basically making the same assumption as biological evolution (i.e. identical, common ancestral genomes) for no real reason.

its funny since even evolution doesnt predict it in any case. when a group of genes dont fit with the accepted phylogeny evolutionists "solve" it by a different selection pressure. in some cases we are talking about 1/3 of the genome that doesnt fit with the phylogeny.

Evolution and broader biology as a whole is complicated and there are always exceptions and things that don't fit neatly into prescribed "rules". Regardless, this is a moot point since I'm trying to get you to explain your so-called design model and all you do is keep invoking the same assumptions as evolution.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Answering these questions (some which are a bit nonsensical) would involve actually learning more about science, biology and in particular evolutionary theory. For example, I tried to get into how hypotheses in science are tested and thus answering your continued refrain about evolution not being testable. But you appear to have completely ignored it and thus continue to repeat the same mantra over and over.

You appear to have little to no desire to actually learning anything here and just continue to repeat your denialism over and over.

That’s a negative on the common ancestor then?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And yet when trying to get creationists to provide a proper model on which to work from the original "created kinds", it's like pulling teeth and they ultimately come up empty. Every. Single. Time.

Or like asking you to provide a proper classification of species that doesn’t allow you to arbitrarily call anything you want a separate species for any reason?

You won’t accept that all canines are one kind, all felines are one kind, all equine ate one kind.

Some are as troubling to us as to you. If you can’t classify correctly birds mating in front of your eyes, how do you expect others to classify what may not be apparent in front of your eyes? I mean those finches went unobserved for close to 200 years, yet DNA testing confirmed they had always been interbreeding. Not that this seems to matter.

So provide me with a set and proper definition of species, that doesn’t conflict with others, and I’ll make out your original created kinds.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We've already been over this. Talking about conservation of genetic sequences only makes sense within the context of having a defined starting point (i.e. a common genome) and a mechanism actually conserving them (i.e. natural selection).

You don't have either of these from a design perspective. Under design what you are comparing is just similarities, not actually evolutionary conservation.

We have been over this. You simply mistake those similarities as evolutionary conservation. If a specific gene sequence works to regulate the production of thiamine, why would you change it up for every creature?

No evolution which is random, would on the other hand predict that these sequences to regulate the production of thiamine should be random.

This isn't a prediction. You have no way of determining what the relative similarities or differences would be. For all you know, a designer created everything with the exact same relative similarity and dissimilarity between genetic sequences that we observe today. In which case, relative similarity doesn't tell us anything by itself.

If you're going to assume the starting genomes would be "nearly identical", all you're doing is basically making the same assumption as biological evolution (i.e. identical, common ancestral genomes) for no real reason.

Says those that want mutation to be random, then want the outcome to be non random. The reason being as discussed before, why reinvent the wheel when you already have the wheel? It’s you that wants the wheel to be randomly changing into something other than a wheel. Don’t project your theories inadequacies unto others.

Evolution and broader biology as a whole is complicated and there are always exceptions and things that don't fit neatly into prescribed "rules". Regardless, this is a moot point since I'm trying to get you to explain your so-called design model and all you do is keep invoking the same assumptions as evolution.

No, he’s not making the same assumption. He’s assuming a dog will always be a dog, a fish a fish, that fish do not become men. And hence every Fossil always remains the same and zilch on the common ancestors.

By exceptions and things that don’t fit do you mean falsifying observations?

 

[Aman777]

So "Kinds" = "Orders." Is that your final answer? We have another creationists who posts here sometimes who maintains that "Kinds" = "Family." What is your comment on that?

Kinds are the kinds made by God the Trinity and God the Son, or Jesus. A good example is the Scriptural fact that Adam was made by the Hands of Jesus on the 3rd Day Gen 2:7 AND Adam was later "created" by God the Trinity on the 6th Day. Gen 1:27 Gen 5:1-2 and John 14:16 Adam was first made physically and then later Spiritually and Eternally. Amen?

 

[Speedwell]

We have to somehow reference modern scientific terminology. Remember all definitions that science uses are man created definitions in order to try and explain a theory or thought process. It doesn't really have any true meaning of her than that. That's all we creationists do as well. Try and define something. We use words and explanations of words in order to assist in understanding. Just cause scientists have defined something doesn't mean they are correct. It's just man made word. Men decided we belong to the ape group. We say we are not the same as apes but are unique from them. But scientists made up the rules of what belongs to the ape family. But that doesn't mean we are really apes.

The Bible is consistent with creatures always remaining the same type of creature that we see in biology today. You confirmed that. As have other evolutionists. It fits with what the Bible claims.

But there is no biblical evidence that "kinds" were meant to describe a divine immutable taxonomy.

 

[Speedwell]

Kinds are the kinds made by God the Trinity and God the Son, or Jesus. A good example is the Scriptural fact that Adam was made by the Hands of Jesus on the 3rd Day Gen 2:7 AND Adam was later "created" by God the Trinity on the 6th Day. Gen 1:27 Gen 5:1-2 and John 14:16 Adam was first made physically and then later Spiritually and Eternally. Amen?

Jesus did not exist until about 4 BC. The Word may have done it, but not the Word incarnate.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I thought you all didn’t want to discuss a more variable genome before mutations rendered it less variable? So what did those genes do before they became inoperative? Apparently something since they were rendered inoperative from a state of being operative.

Wow, I thought you'd already acknowledged more information can come about in a genome, haven't you? In any case, a mutation can add info, delete info, change info, it can arrange info in a different way, etc. There are so many ways that a genome can change which we have literally seen happen both in the lab and in nature, that it's pointless making such a fatuous statement with the expectation you'd be taken seriously. Do you even know how Downs syndrome is caused??

So we can conclude that the genome over time has become less variable due to mutations rendering portions of it inoperative. Functions that are currently unknown..

Nope, you're mistaken yet again.

No, blah blah blahdy blah blablah blah bla diddly blah blahdy blah blablah blah bla diddly blah blah blahdy blah blah blahdy blah blablah blah bla diddly blah blablah blah bla diddly blah.

How are viruses used in genetic engineering (recombinant DNA technology)? | eNotes

“Blah blah blahdy blah blablah blah blahdy blah blablah blah bla diddly blah blah bla diddly blah blah blahdy blah blah blahdy blah blablah blah bla diddly blah blablah blah bla blah blahdy blah blablah blah bla diddly blah diddly blah invade specific cells, blah blahdy blah blablah blah bla blah blahdy blah blablah blah bla diddly blah diddly blah blah blahdy blah blablah blah bla diddly blah blah blahdy blah blablah blah bla diddly blah“

Blah blahdy blah blablah blah bla diddly blah blah blahdy blah blablah blah bla diddly blah blah blahdy blah blablah blah bla diddly blahblah blahdy blah blah blahdy blah blablah blah bla diddly blah blablah blah bla blah blahdy blah blablah blah bla diddly blah blah blahdy blah blablah blah bla diddly blahdiddly blah blah blahdy blah blablah blah bla diddly blah

Blah blahdy blah blablah blah bla diddly blah blah blahdy blah blablah blah bla diddly blah blah blahdy blah blablah blah bla diddly blah.

Do you understand the difference between 'Cells' and 'DNA'?

 

[Jimmy D]

It indicates that all things were created by kinds. Myriads of kinds from the start. It's exactly the opposite of what evolution claims.

Does it? I thought it said

"Let the land bought forth the creatures according to their kinds"

"Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so."

That doesn't sound like it rules out evolution, where we would expect to see an offspring to be of the same "kind" as it's parent. I suppose it's vague enough to mean what you like though. Does it specify somewhere that they were separately created?

 

[BradB]

The first two articles you cited don't support/prove/claim intelligent design. That's my point. All creationists have done is glom onto a study they think somehow is problematic for ToE. It's dishonest creationism 101 tactics.

And my point was not to discuss the publications of these scientists. My point was merely that there "are" scientists functioning within the creationist paradigm. I have no interest in running down every bunny trail as to rather or not their publications meet your approval. The bottom line is that ToE has failed to present any evidence which cannot also be explained within the expected predictions of Creation. While Creation on the other hand has predicted and observed the characteristics of specificity in the arrangement of the universe, laws of physics, and life. A characteristic which has no possible explanation apart from an intelligent source. Everything else being posted in this debate is merely a smoke screen to detract from these facts.

Hope you had a great Thanksgiving.

 

[BradB]

What makes you think that this fellow is a creationist? And what’s p.401 referring to? I’d like to read it myself rather than take “your” word for it.

I suppose I assumed so since he has been allowing websites like Answers in Genesis and other Intelligent Design sites cite his name and work as publications in support of ID for several years now.

 

[BradB]

You have presented zero scientific evidence, that refutes the theory of evolution. The handful of quack scientists you list are just that, quacks and they are not using science to refute anything either. Take a look at the transcripts from the dover trial, when michael behe was the star witness for the id proponents. He was thoroughly exposed and had to admit under oath, if id is science, than astrology would also be considered science.

I don't have to "refute" the ToE. As I have stated over and over. It has plenty of evidence to support it. Warehouses after warehouses full of the stuff. Museums all across the world have evidence stacked from floor to ceiling that supports it. And all one has to do to make all of that evidence completely valid is turn a blind eye to the notion of creation then all that is left is evolution. Just wave away even the possibility of a creator and...ta da... your ToE is basically a proven fact. To rationalize waving away creation they argue that no Creator can be seen or examined anywhere. Well there you have it then... we can't see Him thus He doesn't exist...right? The problem is that all of that "evidence" for evolution is based on similarity arguments which fit well within the theory of creation. If you are like me and not willing to just wave away the possibility of creation simply because we can't see the Creator (we can see His work) then you have to see evidence that does not fit within the creation paradigm. The only two things in such a case that would accomplish this would be 1. a finely graduated chain of fossils leading from one major form to another or 2. an example of an observed random mutation that added beneficial (genetic increasing type) information to the genome of a multi celled organism under a controlled environment in which it was known to not have existed in the population prior. These are the only two evidences that would support the ToE over Creation, and they do not exist anywhere my friend. Nowhere!

 

[BradB]

you made a claim that simple life is in lower layers and more advanced life is in upper layers, but this just isnt true. Im asking you to justify your statement.

So you are telling me that that isn't how the science books normally present the fossil record to us?

 

[Job 33:6]

The statement can be justified by reading a few scientific books on the subject. In the lowest layers, only simple organisms or their impressions are found. As one goes towards more modern layers, the organisms become more complex.

This just isnt true, sorry.

Compound eyes for example, and arthropod body make-ups, are present in the cambrian, and yet, these compound eyes and arthropod bodies, are still found right here in horseshoe crabs of today. What is more advanced in a horseshoe crab than say, a trilobite with respect to its eyes or body makeup?