Evolution's Brick Wall
- Thread starter inquiring mind
- Start date
- Status
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,850,994
- 51,482
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
- Dec 31, 2016
- 7,222
- 3,311
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
You're still trying to use evolutionist's elastic definition of species.
Upvote
0
DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
And they are, as you have been shown with the Tiktaalik example and how it was found by prediction. Your rebuttal was basically "they got lucky" or something of the sort.
Nice dodge.
You can't do it, can you? Just like all the creationists that were given this test couldn't. It was complately funny to see how there was basically a 50/50 split in opinions if it concerned a "human" or an "ape" concerning the transitional fossil skulls, while they all pretty much agreed on the oldest skull being an "ape" and the youngest one being a "human".
Which, incidently, is exactly within the expectation of evolution theory, where species gradually evolve over time.
No, that goes for all scientific theories, in any area/field.
Sure. In evolution, those would be the various observations of all the core mechanisms. But what he's talking about, is the supporting evidence, the data. There is no sinlge "the one" piece of evidence. The convincing part of the data is the overwhelming amount of it, from various different independent lines of evidence, with no data at all to contradict any of it.
How could "a single reference point" reflect the opinions of thousands of scientists? :-S
But yes, the Tiktaalik find is a success story for evolution theory and an important transitional fossil showing the transition from sea life to land animals. This is accepted by consensus, yes.
Creationists are the ones that keep asking for all them supposedly "missing" transitional fossils. So we keep showing them to demonstrate that they aren't "missing" at all.
But off course, it doesn't really matter... Just look at the Tiktaalik example which was presented in much detail in various threads here the past 2 weeks. I don't think a single creationist who keeps asking for example of transitionals actually acknowledged this fossil. We got a whole lot of rather absurd excuses though.
Upvote
0
DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
Remind us all again what this "original" definition of "species" was?
And be sure to be so clear that we can use the definition to take any 2 random organisms and determine if they are the same species/kind. Otherwise, your definition is useless.
Upvote
0
- Dec 31, 2016
- 7,222
- 3,311
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Many plants grow easily in water. I'm sure the Lord provided some type hydro-culture for everything. Genesis 8:11 is proof of it.
Upvote
0
DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
Yes, yes... whenever things don't add up, just "invoke the lord's plan" and all problems will disappear.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
No, I'm using the definition from your AIG "article".
"So a good rule of thumb is that if two things can breed together, then they are of the same created kind. It is a bit more complicated than this, but for the time being, this is a quick measure of a “kind."
And many don't.
I didn't realize that you definition of "proof" is so loose.
"and the dove came in to him at eventide; and, lo, in her mouth an olive-leaf plucked off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth."
Is proof that there was "some sort of hydro culture for everything".
You guys crack me up.
Upvote
0
- Dec 31, 2016
- 7,222
- 3,311
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
deflecting
Apparently the ones needed... did.
You are free to connect-the-dots here too.
Upvote
0
I'm sure that my IQ has dropped slightly after reading through that nonsensical AIG article...So to save you from the same fate...
The English word species comes directly from Latin. For example, the Latin Vulgate (early Latin Bible translation), by Jerome around A.D. 400, says of Genesis 1:21:
creavitque Deus cete grandia et omnem animam viventem atque motabilem quam produxerant aquae in species suas et omne volatile secundum genus suum et vidit Deus quod esset bonum [emphasis added].
Species is also found in the Latin version in Genesis 1:24, 25 as well. The Latin basically meant the biblical “kind.” In fact, this word carried over into English (and other languages that have some Latin influence). It means a “kind, form, or sort.” Another word that was commonly used for a kind in the Latin Vulgate was genus. This is evident in Genesis 1:11, 12, and 21. In both cases, these two words (species and genus) were used for the Hebrew word min or kind.
It made sense that Carl Linnaeus, a Swedish Christian, began using Latin terms for his new classification system. It was logical to use these common terms, which were a part of the commercial language throughout Europe (much in the way that English, for example, is seen as a universal language in the world today for communication and so on). Linnaeus even wrote his large treatise, Systema Natvrae, and other findings, in Latin in the mid to late 1700s.
Early commentators recognized that species originally meant the biblical kinds, as even John Calvin, prominent reformer in the 1500s, stated in his notes on Genesis 1:24:
I say, moreover, it is sufficient for the purpose of signifying the same thing, (1) that Moses declares animals were created “according to their species”: for this distribution carried with it something stable. It may even hence be inferred that the offspring of animals was included. For to what purpose do distinct species exist, unless that individuals, by their several kinds, may be multiplied?
Of course, Calvin originally wrote in Latin, but this early English translation by Thomas Tymme in 1578 still shows the point that the word species was used to mean the biblical kind. Calvin is even pointing out stability or fixity (i.e., biblical kinds). Dr. John Gill, about the same time as Linnaeus, equates species and kinds in his note under Genesis 1:22 by saying:
With a power to procreate their kind, and continue their species, as it is interpreted in the next clause; saying, be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas.
Others, such as Basil, prior to the Latin Vulgate, discussed species as the biblical kind in the fourth century in his Homilies on Genesis 1. Matthew Henry, in the late 1600s and early 1700s, used species as kinds in his notes on Genesis 2:3, saying there would be no new “species” created after creation week had completed. The list could continue. The point is that species originally meant the biblical kind.
Upvote
0
I'm using that AIG defintion you provided. Help me out, how many animals do you think were on this ark?
Upvote
0
- Dec 31, 2016
- 7,222
- 3,311
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
You're 'bucking up' against some pretty heavy contenders here regarding IQ.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
Don't refer me to a multi-page article with a challenge to hunt the definition down.
Why can't you just give the definition in your own words? It shouldn't take up more then a few sentences I would think................................
I read what Jimmy posted, a copy paste from that article supposedly dealing with the subject. I'm not seeing a definition there. It just says that "'original' definition of species = biblical kinds". The thing is though, that's not a definition. That doesn't allow me to take 2 random organisms and determine if they are the same "kind" / "(original meaning of) species".
If the question is to give a definition of what "species" originally meant, and you respond with "the biblical kinds", then I'm just going to ask you for a definition of "biblical kind".
So, can you define your terms or can't you?
Don't tell me to go hunt for the definition somewhere in an article.
Just give the definition. A concise, to the point, definition.
Upvote
0
- Dec 31, 2016
- 7,222
- 3,311
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Like the article says, "God placed variety within the original kinds..." So whatever the number, they fit.
Upvote
0
DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
It starts to sound more and more, that evidence is the very last thing on your list of important things.
Seems like you are now saying that the bible has it correct, period, no matter what the evidence suggests.
Is that correct?
Upvote
0
- Dec 31, 2016
- 7,222
- 3,311
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
I don't jump thru hoops for you; if you want to read it begin on page 4.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I see.
And these kinds diversified into the millions of species we see today in 4000 years did they?
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
