A Question for Creationists

[lasthero]

I'm on my mobile, so I can't cut and paste (or at least I have not been able to work it out), but YouTube regular potholer54 has a nice video which makes the same point, entitled "Ring Species -- the Abridged Version." He uses the Greenish Warbler as his example. The middle group on the Eastern side has since gone extinct due to urbanization destroying their habitat, so the northeastern group is now isolated and can no longer be linked to the others.

You might also want to check out his video "Potholer and Hovind Come Together (Not Like That!)."

<_<; I've already watched all his videos.

 

[OllieFranz]

<_< I've already watched all his videos.

But they are worth watching again. And doubly worth recommending on the forum because there are readers who have not seen them yet.

 

[Naraoia]

That may be, but my statement still stands. He does not understandDNA.

And what is your evidence for this?

I don't think I used "central dogma." So I hve no idea wht it has to do wtih natural selecdtion.

That was Smidlee. His name was on the quote I replied to. I know you aren't very good at paying attention, but please, at least try.

No. I mean natural selecdtion is not a mechanims for evolution.

... at this point I still wasn't talking to you.

First I beleive "kind" and "species" are the same. If thye can mate and producue offspring, they are the same whatever you want to call ie. If they can't they are not the same.

So, my claim stands. New kinds have been observed to form.

Refer to the previous post for two concrete examples. I even bolded the bits that say the new organisms can't breed with the old ones. I can't make it any clearer than that. ("Not interfertile" means they can't breed together and produce offspring. They are different species. Get it yet?)

(Oh, and as for human tinkering? Nope. Hybrids of closely related plant species are very common in nature, for example, so the conditions for the kind of speciation in the TalkOrigins example are all over the place. In many cases, there is genetic evidence that wild plant species have been produced through hybridisation and then reproductive isolation of the hybrid from its parents. However, this process is much easier to observe in the lab than in the wild - hence "observed instances" are likely to involve human meddling. The TalkOrigins list does include some of the wild examples, too. Same goes for speciation by isolation.)

It has not . It is ALWAYS been statements like you just said---new kinds have mostly been produced in observable time.

I didn't say "mostly". I said "most definitely". It was right in front of you when you quoted it.

Where is the biological HOW?

What do you mean by "how"?

One more thing. Give me the definition of speciation and explain, biologically of course, how it is a mechanism for evolution.

Speciation is not a mechanism of evolution, it is an outcome of evolution. When you've got that into you head, we can try again with explanations.

If all life forms we have today, have DNA, what are the chances the dirst one did not also have it?

Pretty large, actually. The first life form would have had to reproduce without the complex protein machinery that modern cells use to copy their DNA and divide. DNA is relatively stable and likes being wound up in a double helix, which is pretty much the opposite of what you need in a self-replicating molecule.

So what other "how" is there? What, exactly, are you looking for by way of an answer to your "how" question?

This.

It seems amazing to me that science with all of its knoweldge has not settled on a definition of "species."

Science is not a body of knowledge. It's a way of finding things out. One of the things we've found out is that "species" is a very hard thing to define.

I dont know wher you got that idea.

Probably from this post:

First of all you have no real evicence that natural selelction is a fact. The kids don't get to select what traits they will get.

I think just the opposite.

You change your mind rather quickly.

Someone said the offspring chooses the chracteristic.

Can't remember anyone other than you saying that.

At least that is how I understood their statement. That is completely wrong.

Then you misunderstood them. Indeed, the idea that offspring get to select their traits is completely wrong. Natural selection doesn't mean that.

 

[Naraoia]

Journal of Cosmology

Be careful, Journal of Cosmology appears to have a bit of a reputation.
Journal of Cosmology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Have you not noticed that none of your evo buds have come to your defense in this?

They have, and I'll happily join them if you like. "Proof" means demonstrating something to be absolutely true given that your starting premises are correct. Science doesn't do that.

It is amazing that anyone with a 3 diget IQ would say science doe not prove things. How is something proven? Let me tell you. Through OBSERVATION and being able to repeat it.

No. Something is proven through taking a bunch of premises and deducing their logical consequences. Mathematics does proofs. The scientific method works in a different way.

 

[lasthero]

Be careful, Journal of Cosmology appears to have a bit of a reputation.
Journal of Cosmology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh, wow, I thought the name sounded familiar. Thanks!

 

[frogman2x]

That is a slightly distorted version of the most common definition of species. But there is nothing in that definition to exclude speciation.

We can quibble over words all you want to. If you prefer 'species' over 'kind' that fine with me. DNA will separate then by any label you want to use. Explain how speciation is a mechanism for evolution. I think that has been invented, although speciation is true, as a mechanism for evolution because they can't explain biologically how evolution works.

[

Your secondary definition of "kind" (that it always reproduces after its own), the one you say will always be true no matter how many generations and breedings, is, worded a little differently, one of the definiing characteristics of aclade. So, as I said you define "kind" as "species" (when asked for a definition), but you speak ("argue") of it as a clade. So which is it?

The definition I found for 'clade' sounded just like theone for species or kind. How about you giving your deinition of clade.

There are several very clear definitions of species. They are not identical because each, in some circumstances becomes useless. For example "Mating and together producing offspring" is meaningless in species (like ferns) that do not reproduce that way.

Most, if not all, plants do not mate. They reporduce through their seeds or through bulbs.

What it "has not settled on" is a definition of "kind." Partly because it is not needed. And partly because when it is used by Con men to preach against science,

Are all pastors Con men? You are now showing your anti-Christiasn bias. Christisn are not againts real science. Science that can prove what it says. We are against evolution being called science.

it has an annoying habit of meaning "species" at the beginning of a sentence, and "clade" at the end, except when it means "genus," "class," "order," or "family."

If it annoying to you, straighten us all out or ignore us.

Ah, but "species" (the word science uses) is well defined. It is "kind" (the word Creationist con men use) that is not defined, so they can juggle through many ideas which are not the same thing at all, and not be caught ot by those whose thinking has become vague and nebulous.

'Kind' is as well defined as 'species.' You just don like to considier them the same thing. If you use 'kind' you have to consider how the Bible uses it and that might put a kink in your evolutinary chain of evolution.

]READ MY COMMENT AGAIN

. I did not claim that you believed that is what actually happens. I claimed that the nature of your response is such that it appears that you think that evolutionists teach that.

Let me clear it up for you. Evolution teaches that all life forms originated from a single source and over the years has evolved into the great variety we have today. Is that accurate or not?

Of course they have no idea how that life form originated or what it was or what it evolved into. You have no idea what the second, third, fourth, into infinity was. You start with an unscientific guess and have been guessing ever since.

It was not me, or any of the posters on this forum who said anything like that. I have never heard anyone claim that, ever. And why did you think that attacking that (strawman) position would have anything to do with what I'd posted?

It is only a strawman to you becaue you disagree with it an cannot refute it.

Finally, since you did not comment on the quoted post (reposted, at your request, I assume that you do not disagree with it?

If I didn't respone to it it is because I have not seen it. I find it difficult in this forum to find some messages. If I ever find it, I will respond.

 

[frogman2x]

Then you must be reading very selectively because at least two of us have agreed with him (me and Ollie Franz).

When I said that I had not found anyone supporting him. Since then I have found Olle supporting that idea. Glad to have you on board.

I just can't understand how anyone with a 3 diget IQ can claim science has not prove there is more than one blood type or that DNA does exist.

To sasy they have only observe it is absurd. Of course they have observed it. That is how you PROVE something.

Do you really think science cannot prove what your blood type is?

You have been indoctrinated with a false doctrine.

So the TOE will never be proven, right?

You need to tell ther Noble prize folks to stop given the science prize for guessing.

 

[frogman2x]

He makes an art form of ignoring evidence....

You make an art form of calling opinions evidence.

 

[FatBurk]

Let me clear it up for you. Evolution teaches that all life forms originated from a single source and over the years has evolved into the great variety we have today. Is that accurate or not?

Broadly speaking yes that just about covers it.

Of course they have no idea how that life form originated or what it was or what it evolved into. You have no idea what the second, third, fourth, into infinity was. You start with an unscientific guess and have been guessing ever since.

They have ideas how the first life form came into being but are not completely sure so most people say 'we don't know', they do know however what it evolved into and what it continued to evolve into and where we're at today.

On the other hand you and your ilk are sure you know how it all started because an old book written by people who knew very little about themselves and even less about the world around them told you a supernatural god did it.

If I was a complete loony I would say: Your version seems to make the most sense so I suggest we all go with that.
But I'm not so I won't.

 

[frogman2x]

Repeating an observation is still just observing a fact.

If somethign is a FACT, it is true. It is somethign that has been proven.

If science had proven what your blood type was, then doctors who knew your parents blood types would not have to test and observe it. they would already know it.

Not that is just plain silly. Childlren do not always get the same blood type as their parents . If the doctor does not know what type you parents have, they must test yours to prove what kind you need so you will not die.

Exactly! There is no such thing as a false fact. That is because a fact is a description of an observed single event. It cannot be proved or disproved.

A fact is not a description of an observed event. A fact is what the observation reveals to make it a fact. The FACT is that science had proved there is more than one blood type. You have shot yourself in the head when you say "there is no such thing as a false fact," then say nothing in science has been proven. That is contradictory.

Some thing is proven when it can be repeated and observed. Science has developed a machine that can prove what your blood type is and it will come out the same every time.

It simply is. Before observing the fact, we can't predict it.

It doesn matter if you can predict it. If it is a fact and you have admditted there are not false facts, it has already been proven and that is a FACT.

In many cases we can assign a probability to its likelihood. Knowing your parents blood types, and the genes that produced them, we can say, for example, that there is a 25% chance that your blood type is AB. After obsevation, that probability does not matter. We know, whatever the odds might have been, that you are, indeed AB.

All you are doing is digging your hole deeper. You can guess wha tthe blood type might be, but you can also prove what it is. You say we KNOW. If we KNOW, then it has been proven. If it hasn't been proven, you can't know

This discussion is a complete waste of time. If you believe science doensn't prove things, that 's fine with me. If you ever need a blood transfusion, tell the doctor he can't prove wht type you are, so just give me the cheapest one you have.

If you even have a lump somewhere in your body and the docor says you need a MRI, tell him it is a waste of time and money, that machine can't prove I have one, even though I can feel it.

This is my last respones about science not proving things. I have more important things to do. My toenails need trimming.

 

[frogman2x]

And what is your evidence for this?

That was Smidlee. His name was on the quote I replied to. I know you aren't very good at paying attention, but please, at least try.

If all you are interested in is making snide remarks, go back to the playground and insult the children there.

 

[Naraoia]

I just can't understand how anyone with a 3 diget IQ can claim science has not prove there is more than one blood type or that DNA does exist.

People with 3 digit IQs can understand the difference between proof and observation?

You need to tell ther Noble prize folks to stop given the science prize for guessing.

"Guessing" and "proving" are not the only two options...

If all you are interested in is making snide remarks, go back to the playground and insult the children there.

It's clearly not all I'm interested in given my posting history with you. At one point, I was interested in humouring you. Now I'm just tired and frustrated.

 

[frogman2x]

Broadly speaking yes that just about covers it.

They have ideas how the first life form came into being but are not completely sure so most people say 'we don't know', they do know however what it evolved into and what it continued to evolve into and where we're at today.

The do not have clue how it came into being or what it was. They start with a guess and have continued guessing for over 100 years. So with your great science intellect, tell me wha the first life form evolved into. Then tell me what the seocnd life form evolved into.

On the other hand you and your ilk are sure you know how it all started because an old book written by people who knew very little about themselves and even less about the world around them told you a supernatural god did it.

And people of your ilk don't know how the universe started, so there you start with another unscientific guess. You are not even good guessers. You make unscientific guesses and call it science. How absurd. But since people of you ilk think they know every thing abort science, explain to me how matter created itself out of nothing and I will gladly become one of your ilk.

How did you determine those people knew very little about them selves or the world arond them? Another guess you can't prove. FYI, the folks wrote what God told them to write. But people of your ilk are smarter than those goat herders right?

Still you can't explain how the unverse or life originatd and they can.

If I was a complete loony I would say: Your version seems to make the most sense so I suggest we all go with that.
But I'm not so I won't.

It seems like people of your ilk don't have the intellectualy capacity to discuss something without making snide remarks. Howeve I enjoy your snide remarks. It shows everyone what ilk of a person you really are.

I am looking forward to your explanation of how matter created itself out of nothing. I feel with your great intellect on this subject you will also provide the science that made it possible. No more guessing please. People of my ilk require evidence and we prefer it to be scientific.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The do not have clue how it came into being or what it was. They start with a guess and have continued guessing for over 100 years. So with your great science intellect, tell me wha the first life form evolved into. Then tell me what the seocnd life form evolved into.



And people of your ilk don't know how the universe started, so there you start with another unscientific guess. You are not even good guessers. You make unscientific guesses and call it science. How absurd. But since people of you ilk think they know every thing abort science, explain to me how matter created itself out of nothing and I will gladly become one of your ilk.

How did you determine those people knew very little about them selves or the world arond them? Another guess you can't prove. FYI, the folks wrote what God told them to write. But people of your ilk are smarter than those goat herders right?

Still you can't explain how the unverse or life originatd and they can.



It seems like people of your ilk don't have the intellectualy capacity to discuss something without making snide remarks. Howeve I enjoy your snide remarks. It shows everyone what ilk of a person you really are.

I am looking forward to your explanation of how matter created itself out of nothing. I feel with your great intellect on this subject you will also provide the science that made it possible. No more guessing please. People of my ilk require evidence and we prefer it to be scientific.

Don't you believe in creatio ex nihilo? Care to elucidate for us how that works?

 

[frogman2x]

People with 3 digit IQs can understand the difference between proof and observation?

"Guessing" and "proving" are not the only two options...

It's clearly not all I'm interested in given my posting history with you.

Then why use snide remarks at all? Do you not consider yourself a polite person.

At one point, I was interested in humouring you.

How arrogant and self serving. You did succeed at that. I found most of what you said, very amusing


Now I'm just tired and frustrated.[/quote]


That always happens when you can't offer the scientific evidence for your dogma.

I am sure I have graduated to your ignore list, so you have a nice day and go amuse someone else.

 

[Aman777]

Broadly speaking yes that just about covers it.

They have ideas how the first life form came into being but are not completely sure so most people say 'we don't know', they do know however what it evolved into and what it continued to evolve into and where we're at today.

Dear Fay, Science knows that without liquid water, a cell cannot survive. God tells us He created and brought forth, from the water, EVERY living creature that moves. This is PROOF of God since today's scientists STILL are willingly ignorant of God's Truth. NO man, who lived thousands of years before Science, could possibly have known and correctly written this Scientific fact in Genesis.

On the other hand you and your ilk are sure you know how it all started because an old book written by people who knew very little about themselves and even less about the world around them told you a supernatural god did it.

False, since ancient theology does NOT agree with Scripture. The Bible does agree with scripture, science, and history, revealing that ONLY God could have authored Genesis, and that is what He claims.

Genesis also tells us we live in a Multiverse.
The Big Bang was on the 3rd Day.
That Adam was a Special Creation who was made BEFORE any other living creature.
That darkness existed BEFORE light.
That the Stars did not light until long AFTER the Big Bang of our Cosmos.
That every living creature including Natual mankind (prehistoric man) came forth from the water on the 5th Day, long after the first Human was made.
That the formula for making Billions of humans is to mix prehistoric mankind with Adam's descendants.

These are but a few of the things written in Genesis which NO ancient man could have possibly known and written 3k years ago. It's PROOF of God.

If I was a complete loony I would say: Your version seems to make the most sense so I suggest we all go with that.
But I'm not so I won't.

Some of today's scientists THINK that they know more than God about the Creation. Can you explain their obvious ignorance of God's Scientific Truth written more than 3k years ago?

In Love,
Aman

 

[frogman2x]

Do we need to be omniscient before we can know something is not true?

You do unless you can prove what someone said is not true.

Do you need to be omniscient to know that Muhammad did not fly up to heaven on a winged horse?<<

You do unless you can prove he didn't

Scripture says that Jesus's ascension was a literal, bodily return to heaven. He rose from the ground gradually and visibly, observed by many intent onlookers. As the disciples strained to catch a last glimpse of Jesus, a cloud hid Him from their view, and two angels appeared and promised Christ's return "in just the same way that you have watched Him go" (Acts 1:11).
Do you need to be omniscient to know that the above is just a story and it didn't really happen?

You do unless you can prove it is just a story. Can you do that?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Dear Fay, Science knows that without liquid water, a cell cannot survive. God tells us He created and brought forth, from the water, EVERY living creature that moves. This is PROOF of God since today's scientists STILL are willingly ignorant of God's Truth. NO man, who lived thousands of years before Science, could possibly have known and correctly written this Scientific fact in Genesis.



False, since ancient theology does NOT agree with Scripture. The Bible does agree with scripture, science, and history, revealing that ONLY God could have authored Genesis, and that is what He claims.

Genesis also tells us we live in a Multiverse.
The Big Bang was on the 3rd Day.
That Adam was a Special Creation who was made BEFORE any other living creature.
That darkness existed BEFORE light.
That the Stars did not light until long AFTER the Big Bang of our Cosmos.
That every living creature including Natual mankind (prehistoric man) came forth from the water on the 5th Day, long after the first Human was made.
That the formula for making Billions of humans is to mix prehistoric mankind with Adam's descendants.

These are but a few of the things written in Genesis which NO ancient man could have possibly known and written 3k years ago. It's PROOF of God.



Some of today's scientists THINK that they know more than God about the Creation. Can you explain their obvious ignorance of God's Scientific Truth written more than 3k years ago?

In Love,
Aman

And that the land and vegetation preceded the sun and stars...

 

[Aman777]

Don't you believe in creatio ex nihilo? Care to elucidate for us how that works?

Dear Archaeopteryx, The Bible does NOT say God created matter from nothing. Here is what it says which agrees in every way with the Science, which was not known until thousands of years after this was written.

Hbr 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

God lives in a world of Light or Energy which can be changed into matter and vice versa, according to Science. 1 Timothy 6 (Blue Letter Bible: KJV - King James Version)

In Love,
Aman

 

[Naraoia]

That always happens when you can't offer the scientific evidence for your dogma.

No. It happens when you repeatedly offer evidence, attempt to explain it, and after ninety pages, this guy who can't even get the concept of natural selection straight keeps insisting that you didn't.

I am sure I have graduated to your ignore list, so you have a nice day and go amuse someone else.

Are you so eager to be on my ignore list? Did I perhaps not amuse you as much as you claim?