Answering Key Issues Against the Theory of Darwinian Evolution

[The Barbarian]

"Biblically Based Taxonomy" is like "Biblically Based Auto Repair." Just a misguided attempt to impose one's own hopes and fears on God's word.

Except of course that auto repair doesn't scare creationists.

 

[Deborah D]

"Biblically Based Taxonomy" is like "Biblically Based Auto Repair." Just a misguided attempt to impose one's own hopes and fears on God's word.

Except of course that auto repair doesn't scare creationists.

They're not really the same at all. God did't create the automobile! He did create all living creatures according to His account clearly spelled out in the book of Genesis. It's evolutionists who have imposed their misguided ideas on God Word!

Scientific principles are NOT the invention of man. God created the laws of science and put them in motion when He created the universe. It's sinful, prideful man who has come up with his own foolish unbiblical explanations of how the universe came to exist.

 

[Job 33:6]

They're not really the same at all. God did't create the automobile! He did create all living creatures according to His account clearly spelled out in the book of Genesis. It's evolutionists who have imposed their misguided ideas on God Word!

Scientific principles are NOT the invention of man. God created the laws of science and put them in motion when He created the universe. It's sinful, prideful man who has come up with his own foolish unbiblical explanations of how the universe came to exist.

Says the person who sources contradictory information...

 

[Deborah D]

Says the person who sources contradictory information...

Says you that it’s contradictory!

 

[Job 33:6]

Says you that it’s contradictory!

That's correct.

 

[Deborah D]

Says the person who sources contradictory information...

So, you can't reply to what I wrote; you have to put me down because I copied and pasted a portion of an article from AIG's website. That's a weak argument, wouldn't you say?

Plus, I haven't seen any proof from you about what AIG has said about the taxonomy. That's why I said "says you...." I'm the only one here offering information, and you put me down for doing it. You're ragging on AIG and me without offering any proof at all.

 

[Job 33:6]

So, you can't reply to what I wrote; you have to put me down because I copied and pasted a portion of an article from AIG's website. That's a weak argument, wouldn't you say?

Plus, I haven't seen any proof from you about what AIG has said about the taxonomy. That's why I said "says you...." I'm the only one here offering information, and you put me down for doing it. You're ragging on AIG and me without offering any proof at all.

I'm just pointing out that you openly sourced blatently contradictory information.

It shows that you aren't a scientist and aren't in a position to accurately judge science

 

[Deborah D]

I'm just pointing out that you openly sourced blatently contradictory information.

It shows that you aren't a scientist and aren't in a position to accurately judge science

Please point out the contradictions in the AIG article I posted. I repeat, you haven't submitted any evidence that AIG has even said the things you're accusing them of, and the quote I provided doesn't match what you've stated.

I have never claimed to be a scientist. My bachelor's degree is in a "soft" science, and I've taught English and history in the public schools. However, I'm not so stupid that I can't understand basic science.

Do you have a college degree in science? I asked you if you're a geologist, and you didn't respond.

 

[Job 33:6]

Please point out the contradictions in the AIG article I posted. I repeat, you haven't submitted any evidence that AIG has even said the things you're accusing them of, and the quote I provided doesn't match what you've stated.

I have never claimed to be a scientist. My bachelor's degree is in a "soft" science, and I've taught English and history in the public schools. However, I'm not so stupid that I can't understand basic science.

Do you have a college degree in science? I asked you if you're a geologist, and you didn't respond.

Re-read post number 74

 

[Deborah D]

Re-read post number 74

I just read post #74. I didn't see any of AIG's material directly quoted.

 

[Deborah D]

Just dont want anyone to miss this.

Most genus of animal, if not all genus of any family of animal, do not interbreed (or produce viable offspring in the least).

And yet here we have AIG stating that kinds generally interbreed and reproduce more of their kind, but simultaneously, they roughly correspond to the family level.

They are contradicting themselves.


Its like saying that lions and tigers and pumas and cheetahs and lynx and leopards and panthers and jaguars all interbreed.

Lynx - Wikipedia

but we know that they do not (A tiger cannot interbreed with a lynx of any cats of the lynx related sub families and genus), and if any of them could, they would not produce fertile offspring.

99.99% of genus of a single family of animal, if not 100% cannot produce viable offspring, yet here AIG is stating that a "kind" roughly correlates to a family of animal, which therefore means that differing genus of a single family of animal "generally interbreed and produce...more organisms of their own kind"

They literally contradict themselves in their own words.

Did I miss a quote from AIG's material in this post?

 

[Job 33:6]

Did I miss a quote from AIG's material in this post?

Ok, now re read post 77

 

[Deborah D]

I just read post 77. Could you provide a link to or a title for AIG's article that you're quoting?

When I quoted from one of their articles, I gave the title so that anyone interested in checking my source can do it. I don't see why you're not just giving the name of the article or book that you've quoted.

 

[Job 33:6]

I just read post 77. Could you provide a link to or a title for AIG's article that you're quoting?

When I quoted from one of their articles, I gave the title so that anyone interested in checking my source can do it. I don't see why you're not just giving the name of the article or book that you've quoted.

How do you think I found the quote?

Do you not recognize your own words? Are you incapable of figuring out where your own words came from?

 

[Job 33:6]

Post number 77 reads...

""Created kinds are organisms representing or descended from those originally created by God about 6,000 years ago. Organisms within a created kind generally interbreed and produce only more organisms of their own kind 'within the limits of preprogrammed information, but with great variation.'5Organisms that can interbreed are of the same created kind, since God designed organisms to reproduce “after their kind.' Due to loss of information and other factors, however, some organisms lose the ability to interbreed. Created kinds correspond roughly to the family level of the current classification taxons but may vary from order to genus level.".

Post number 71 written by...you...reads..

""Created kinds are organisms representing or descended from those originally created by God about 6,000 years ago. Organisms within a created kind generally interbreed and produce only more organisms of their own kind 'within the limits of preprogrammed information, but with great variation.'5Organisms that can interbreed are of the same created kind, since God designed organisms to reproduce “after their kind.' Due to loss of information and other factors, however, some organisms lose the ability to interbreed. Created kinds correspond roughly to the family level of the current classification taxons but may vary from order to genus level."




Deborah D:
"I just read post 77. Could you provide a link to or a title for AIG's article that you're quoting?"

"I don't see why you're not just giving the name of the article or book that you've quoted."


Do you not know where your own quote came from?

 

[Deborah D]

How do you think I found the quote?

Do you not recognize your own words? Are you incapable of figuring out where your own words came from?

There you go again with the put downs. I’m done.

 

[Job 33:6]

There you go again with the put downs. I’m done.

I am sorry if I hurt your feelings. But I mean come on, you are going to have to throw me a bone here.

Here is what you said:

"I just read post 77. Could you provide a link to or a title for AIG's article that you're quoting?

When I quoted from one of their articles, I gave the title so that anyone interested in checking my source can do it. I don't see why you're not just giving the name of the article or book that you've quoted."

Especially the last sentence there "I don't see why you're not just giving the name..."

It sets a tone as if I am doing something wrong by not providing a source. Which in most cases, I would be happy to provide a source, but in this case, I literally used your source. Which defeats the purpose of me providing a source because you should already know (or should know) what it is, as you already used the source, quoted the source and even stated where the information came from.

I found the source, because you told me where it was, and yet somehow I am doing something wrong by not posting your own source?

--------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, at the end of the day, AIG simply contradicted themselves, as described in our prior posts. If you are unable to accept this simple and clear reality, then you are probably unable to accept other realities (especially with regards to scientific matters, as you are not a scientist).

And I don't mean that last sentence offensively. I would probably have trouble wrapping my head around something like electrical engineering, as I am not an electrical engineer.

Thus far, all I have seen is a non-scientist quoting contradictory information and subsequently denying or acting confused about their own actions (you). If you want to redeem your credibility, then...you will have to humble yourself and either accept the contradiction or simply state that you aren't familiar with the material and cannot comment on it. And there is nothing wrong with saying "I don't know". But the last thing you want to do is keep digging your hole deeper and deeper by acting confused about where your own sources came from, and speaking as if it is everyone else who is confused and not you.



I will give you the last word.

 

[Deborah D]

Koma..., do me a big favor and read this entire post (pretty please).

I accept your apology, but you didn't hurt my feelings. Put downs really get on my nerves and stifle communication. If you're married, ask your wife about that.

I didn't realize that you were quoting from an older post of mine. I have severe sleep problems at times where I only get a few hours of sleep per night for a week or two. Try thinking about all of this on that little sleep and working 4 days a week. God gets me through, but sometimes it's hard.

You're right about my not being a scientist. I don't even try to debate this topic on that level. However, I get very tired of people saying hateful things about AIG. They have a well qualified staff that includes a Ph.D. biologist, and I'm sure he understands the taxonomy better than I do (and probably better than a geologist does). So when you act like they don't know what they're talking about, I'm nonplussed. If they did contradict themselves about this issue, oh well.... I thought the second article I posted made their position clear.

Also, I was wondering why you seemed to be evading my question about your education. I asked twice if you have a college degree in geology, and you've yet to answer that. Since you're the one who brought up credentials, I thought it was only fair that you make clear what yours are.

Again, I appreciate the apology.

 

[Job 33:6]

Koma..., do me a big favor and read this entire post (pretty please).

I accept your apology, but you didn't hurt my feelings. Put downs really get on my nerves and stifle communication. If you're married, ask your wife about that.

I didn't realize that you were quoting from an older post of mine. I have severe sleep problems at times where I only get a few hours of sleep per night for a week or two. Try thinking about all of this on that little sleep and working 4 days a week. God gets me through, but sometimes it's hard.

You're right about my not being a scientist. I don't even try to debate this topic on that level. However, I get very tired of people saying hateful things about AIG. They have a well qualified staff that includes a Ph.D. biologist, and I'm sure he understands the taxonomy better than I do (and probably better than a geologist does). So when you act like they don't know what they're talking about, I'm nonplussed. If they did contradict themselves about this issue, oh well.... I thought the second article I posted made their position clear.

Also, I was wondering why you seemed to be evading my question about your education. I asked twice if you have a college degree in geology, and you've yet to answer that. Since you're the one who brought up credentials, I thought it was only fair that you make clear what yours are.

Again, I appreciate the apology.

Thanks. Yes, I am a geologist and I am familiar with paleontology and have published research in it. In paleontology, we also are familiar with taxonomy (at least as it pertains to prehistoric life which is 99% of all life to have ever lives so far as we are aware). And as a geologist, of course I understand the earth in which fossils are found, things like the fossil succession, how we understand the age of the earth etc.

We live in challenging times. I suppose these challenges have existed for hundreds of years now since we had the ability to ponder them.

 

[Job 33:6]

The thing about AIG is, they regularly contradict themselves. And it isn't just here. I've read their geology and paleo articles on a handful of occasions and they consistently state information that is contradictory. I have emailed them as well, and they never address me.

Other scientists here on these forums can vouch. This isn't shocking to us, rather it is commonly known that AIG doesn't have the most technically correct information (to put it lightly). And while you are tired of people criticizing AIG, I am tired of AIG misleading our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, who aren't always familiar with the subject matter.

I am sorry if this bothers you, but in my opinion, AIG is scientifically dishonest.

This results in people consistently repeating the same contradictory information without understanding it. Sometimes AIG even criticizes our work as geologists in dishonest ways. Which on occasion we might put down our rock collections for 2 seconds and may respond.

This is why I came down a bit hard on this one, because, this isn't the first time AIG has been quoted in a scenario in which the quote doesn't make sense.

and you don't have to trust or accept my opinion.

Some people deny that the moon landings happened, unfortunately. Just the same, some people deny things like plate tectonics. But we will keep advancing none the less, despite the presence of deniers and nay sayers.