Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
mrversatile48 said:Hi!
I'm fairly sure it awas Henry Morris, in Noah's Ark & The Genesis Flood, who said that it had been calculated that all the species who needed to go on the Ark would fit into 1.5 decks, & the food needed for humans & animals fit on half a deck, leaving a full deck for Noah & his family
mrversatile48 said:What I'm highlighting is the strange irony that so many folk automatically believe scientists,
mrversatile48 said:who so often say just what they are paid to say by Govt/big business, yet totally discount the unique wisdom, knowledge, integrity & power of Almighty God
Jimmy The Hand said:of course if you could fit and feed all the animals, you still have a problem of a 450 foot long keeless, wooden boat with no steel reiniforcement being sloshed around in the midst of the "heavens opening" and "fountains of the deep erupting".
And it is this sequence of many many many speciations that have not been proven or observed and what identifies E in contract to C. Thus, we have theory pitted against theory. This was my beginning point. If science cannot observe many many many speciations, thus creating an entirely new animal, that is a viable part of it's environment, then we have not disproven C or proven E. To claim otherwise is a lie, and I take objection to it.gluadys said:Indeed it can't. Remember speciation means a new species, not a new genus or order. The new species will always be closely related to, and very much like the parent species. It would take a sequence of many, many, many speciations to increase the difference between an ancestor and a descendant species to the point where they belonged in different taxonomic categories.
The only good discussing the definition for species would have is that E and C would be better able to communicate rather than simply arguing back and forth not getting any closer to understanding each other. It is fine to have fuzzy lines, as long as everyone in the discussion is able to "play" with the same fuzziness. To require C to not allow a fuzziness to their definition is not playing by the same rules and proves nothing. Both theories are reliant on the definition of species, both should have the same right to interpret the fuzzy areas and explain thier view accordingly.What good would that do, when it is nature that is the source of the fuzziness---not our inability to describe species?
What about God creating the animals to adapt to the world around them? That would stand to reason as being a viable explaination for adaptability from a C standpoint and one that cannot be disproven. To prove it, one would have to remove God from the equasion and then dispove the TOE which currently is no more possible than disproving the existance of God.Without evolution there would be no adaptability.
Am I understanding you correctly? In the case of the neonate salamander, one would need the lack of (I think it is) iodine to create the variant.To get adaptability, you need:
a) a mechanism which introduces variants into the gene pool and the organism (mutation, sexual sortation), and
Again, am I getting your point or am I missing it? The neonate is able to reproduce in it's neonate state.b) a mechanism which selects, spreads and preserves the adaptive variants while ignoring or repressing the others (natural selection).
But we have not seen that change over generations, only suspect that it occurs, that is what makes E theory not fact.ult will be a change in the characteristics of the species over generations. That's evolution.
But notice your own words here, it may lead not fact that it does lead to, but rather the possibility that it could. It is equally possible that there was a creator that created the adaptability we currently see in the species and that it has nothing to do with E at all. That is exactly what makes both theories and neither fact.change is significant enough, it may lead to new species. Note that the process is evolution, whether or not it leads to new species.
Not if reproductive abilities are lost. Which is always a possibility and data would suggest that this possibility exists.But over time, it is pretty much inevitable that you will get new species through the accumulation of many changes.
And this fuzziness should pertain to both groups, and all theories.Sure it does. You can't show that speciation has occurred unless you have criteria for what is and is not a species. And in many cases we can say that a group is a species. It is only in borderline cases where things get fuzzy. Just as most of the time there is no question as to whether a colour is green or blue. But when you get to those in-between cases of greenish-blue or blue-green, it is not so easy to categorize them.
And having a better definition doesn't help, because the fault is not in the definition. The fuzziness is part of the reality of nature.
I did not say that it was a manipulation of the data, only the manipulation of the definition,It is not a matter of manipulating the data. (Manipulated data would have a hard time getting through peer review.)
AgreedRather it is recognizing that it is nature itself that is creating the fuzzy species line.
C can accept this fuzziness due to the adaptability that God created within the species.And that TOE explains this reality; TOE expects the lines to be fuzzy, because if evolution is fact, the species lines must be fuzzy during the process of speciation.
Because of the vastness of the universe and the adaptability observed within the species, C can easily accept this fuzziness in nature. I would imagine that some C beliefs do not allow this, but that is not at the root of the theory and has been addressed in discussions about YEC etc.I don't know if you are saying that creationism expects the species lines to be clear-cut. But if it does, its expectations are not supported by observation.
Already addressed the inconclusive nature of the fossil record. We need more proof in order to assert more than simply assumptions. Assumptions not equaling fact.Jet Black said:well the fact that as we descend through the fossil record, the canidae fossils become less and less canid like.
ok, explain the order of therapsids, homonids, cetaceans, carnivores, sea snails and theropods to me then. there are lots more I can hunt down if you like, though there are a few other things, such as the lack of sharks teeth in the cambrian, lack of whales in the cambrian, lack of mammals in the cambrian, lack of birds in the cambrian, lack of pretty much any modern organism in the cambrian really. lack of homonids in the jurassic, lack of homonids in the devonian, lack of homonids in the silurian, lack of birds in the silurian, lack of passenger pigeons pretty much anywhere - do we need to go on? there is no particular reason for the ordering of all the fossils, and it seems pretty strange that there isn't a single whale, shark or cod right at the bottom of the geological record. and absolutely no trilobytes and ammonites later on in the fossil record. absolutely all of these things fit in with the pattern of evolution, increasingly derived characteristics appear higher up in the strata. It's not like you find any reptiles in romer's gap or anything, just primitive tetrapods. care to offer an explanation and tell me why all of this is inconclusive?razzelflabben said:Already addressed the inconclusive nature of the fossil record. We need more proof in order to assert more than simply assumptions. Assumptions not equaling fact.
but where do you define an entirely new animal? Is archaeopteryx an entirely new animal? is cynodont an entirely new animal. why do some therapsids have both a reptillian and a mammalian jaw at the same time? Surely that's pretty stupid if you are designing something, since a joint reptillian and mammalian jaw, while more advanced than a reprillian jaw depending on the lifestyle, is far inferior to a mammalian jaw in the same lifestyle. are humans and chimps entirely new animals. the human just appears to be pretty much a neotenic primate with a few other changes to it. genetically they are about the same.razzelflabben said:And it is this sequence of many many many speciations that have not been proven or observed and what identifies E in contract to C. Thus, we have theory pitted against theory. This was my beginning point. If science cannot observe many many many speciations, thus creating an entirely new animal, that is a viable part of it's environment, then we have not disproven C or proven E. To claim otherwise is a lie, and I take objection to it.
oh creationists can have just as much flexibility in their definition of species as they like, after all it is just a copy of the biological definition of species after all. The problem is the extra definition, namely that of "kinds." which are supposedly inviolate. I suppose a creationist could add the extra definition that a species is a sub-kind which has become genetically separated from other sub-kinds, but still the kind is sat there nigling away, waiting to be defined.The only good discussing the definition for species would have is that E and C would be better able to communicate rather than simply arguing back and forth not getting any closer to understanding each other. It is fine to have fuzzy lines, as long as everyone in the discussion is able to "play" with the same fuzziness. To require C to not allow a fuzziness to their definition is not playing by the same rules and proves nothing. Both theories are reliant on the definition of species, both should have the same right to interpret the fuzzy areas and explain thier view accordingly.
but remembe rthat the creationist places artificial barriers on this adaptability without ever really defining those limits. so often we hear "well ok they can vary, but only a bit".... but never how much they can vary. can a mesonyx vary so much it becomes a dog or a cat? can a theropod vary so much it becomes a bird. can a land bound animal vary so much that it becomes a seal, can a seal vary so much that it becomes totally water born? none of these limits are ever defined in the creationist model, however they are still claimed to be there.What about God creating the animals to adapt to the world around them? That would stand to reason as being a viable explaination for adaptability from a C standpoint and one that cannot be disproven. To prove it, one would have to remove God from the equasion and then dispove the TOE which currently is no more possible than disproving the existance of God.
neotenic. the point is that you claimed that large variations cannot occur, when this demonstrates that they can.Am I understanding you correctly? In the case of the neonate salamander, one would need the lack of (I think it is) iodine to create the variant.
Again, am I getting your point or am I missing it? The neonate is able to reproduce in it's neonate state.
how much change do you require before it becomes obvious to you?I will wait to comment until I am sure I am understanding your statements here.
But we have not seen that change over generations, only suspect that it occurs, that is what makes E theory not fact.
again, the creationists have as much flexibility in the species definition as biologists, where they don't have the fizziness is in kinds, because kinds shouldn't be flexible (each animal produces after it's own kind, two of each kind went onto the ark) and so on....Razz quote So if the E wants to prove that E is fact, all that is required is to manipulate a fuzzy definition of species and fit the observations. end of quote
In other words, depending on how I define the fuzzy areas, I can claim that the neopate salamander is a different species. This does not mean that E has been proven, it means that I have manipulated the definition enough to suggest that E is fact. This is what I was refering too, not manipulating the data to show that the neonate is something it is not.
First off, without eye witnesses, we would even be assming that lightning struck the tree. it would require more observation to determine if the lightening scared the tree or something else happened while you were sleeping.Jimmy The Hand said:If a storm passes your house in the night, filled with lightning, and the next morning you find a tree with a long charged scar down its trunk.
Is it an assumption that lightning when it meets resistance burns?
Right now, I won't even try to address the questions you are asking because they totally evade the point I was making, thus getting off topic again. The point I was making is that the shear amount of fossil evidence, or lack thereof, makes the observations inconclusive. For example, what percent of fossil evidence has been uncovered and studied? 90%, not even close I am sure, how about even 50% again, I am sure we don't even come close to that number, in fact, even archealogical studies, which are much more modern, I have heard are less than 1% uncovered and even fewer have been studied and logged. Now I don't know the actual numbers of fossil records, but I would imagine the numbers are similar or worse, so how then, does less than 1% of the data reviewed equal factual evidence? I am saying that it does not prove anything except that we have a lot more fossils to study. We can offer alternative explainations all day, but the bottom line is that there isn't enough data to make an accurate prediction for the data.Jet Black said:ok, explain the order of therapsids, homonids, cetaceans, carnivores, sea snails and theropods to me then. there are lots more I can hunt down if you like, though there are a few other things, such as the lack of sharks teeth in the cambrian, lack of whales in the cambrian, lack of mammals in the cambrian, lack of birds in the cambrian, lack of pretty much any modern organism in the cambrian really. lack of homonids in the jurassic, lack of homonids in the devonian, lack of homonids in the silurian, lack of birds in the silurian, lack of passenger pigeons pretty much anywhere - do we need to go on? there is no particular reason for the ordering of all the fossils, and it seems pretty strange that there isn't a single whale, shark or cod right at the bottom of the geological record. and absolutely no trilobytes and ammonites later on in the fossil record. absolutely all of these things fit in with the pattern of evolution, increasingly derived characteristics appear higher up in the strata. It's not like you find any reptiles in romer's gap or anything, just primitive tetrapods. care to offer an explanation and tell me why all of this is inconclusive?
Well, I don't know in each case, and that would be another discussion all together, but we like to talk alot about the fraudulant data observed, I have heard reports that in some of the bones uncovered, where rptillian and mammalian jaws coiside, it is because they are bones of two distinctly different animals. This would leave one to wonder what is truth and what is not. Do not misunderstand me, there have been observations that would suggest E, my point however is that the observations are inconclusive.Jet Black said:but where do you define an entirely new animal? Is archaeopteryx an entirely new animal? is cynodont an entirely new animal. why do some therapsids have both a reptillian and a mammalian jaw at the same time? Surely that's pretty stupid if you are designing something, since a joint reptillian and mammalian jaw, while more advanced than a reprillian jaw depending on the lifestyle, is far inferior to a mammalian jaw in the same lifestyle. are humans and chimps entirely new animals. the human just appears to be pretty much a neotenic primate with a few other changes to it. genetically they are about the same.
I have heard this arguement made several times on this thread, and I simply fail to see where you are getting this assumption. According to the biblical record, it is highly possible for kind to mean species and is a workable theory. So why are you then asserting that C require an additional definition for species. That is no more a requirement for the TOC than it is for the TOE. You are going to have to explain to me how C requires a more hard definition of kind than species, because it simply doesn't make sense in light of the original theory.oh creationists can have just as much flexibility in their definition of species as they like, after all it is just a copy of the biological definition of species after all. The problem is the extra definition, namely that of "kinds." which are supposedly inviolate. I suppose a creationist could add the extra definition that a species is a sub-kind which has become genetically separated from other sub-kinds, but still the kind is sat there nigling away, waiting to be defined.
Do each of these instances produce a new and different species? If yes, then it could be assumed that the theory of C would predict that it cannot happen, at least to the degree that the animal could reproduce the change. If no, then I would guess that it is possible in the C theory. So it all hinges on how science defines species. So let me ask you, are they then new species?but remembe rthat the creationist places artificial barriers on this adaptability without ever really defining those limits. so often we hear "well ok they can vary, but only a bit".... but never how much they can vary. can a mesonyx vary so much it becomes a dog or a cat? can a theropod vary so much it becomes a bird. can a land bound animal vary so much that it becomes a seal, can a seal vary so much that it becomes totally water born? none of these limits are ever defined in the creationist model, however they are still claimed to be there.
The problem with your point as I have already discussed, is that the neotenic is not a new species, but rather a neonate form of an already existing species. Just as a catapillar is not a new species of a butterfly, a neonate is not a different species of a salamander.neotenic. the point is that you claimed that large variations cannot occur, when this demonstrates that they can.
how much change do you require before it becomes obvious to you?
Why can't it be fuzzy? Who set this rule? Were the animals listed someplace and I missed it? The theory leaves some room for fuzziness which is why there can be many different threads of the same theory, for example, the YEC.again, the creationists have as much flexibility in the species definition as biologists, where they don't have the fizziness is in kinds, because kinds shouldn't be flexible (each animal produces after it's own kind, two of each kind went onto the ark) and so on....
you continually make this statement of inconclusivity without ever adressing any of the evidence. the problem with the fraud argument is that it doesn't hold weight. even if som eare frauds (can we have some examples of fraudulent therapsids please) what about the ones that are not? The point about the therapsid jaw is that it contains features that are seen in both reptiles and mammals particularly the case of having both joiints. the bones though are sufficiently different from either to demonstrate that the jaw is an intermediate between the two. i.e. one cannot stick a mammalian jaw in a reprile and have it have two joints, since the reptillian skull does not accomodate a double joint, the same is true for the mammal. Furthermore the exactness of these jaws also demonstrates how part of the reprillian jaw slowly evolved into the mammalian ear bones. even though the therapsid has two joints, one of them becomes weaker and becomes better suited to sound transmission (though still not as good as a mammal) then there are all the other examples I gave there, though zou still just saz inconclusive, without ever sazing why. what would be conclusive to you? why do you hold that standard? what is inconclusive about the current fossil record?razzelflabben said:Well, I don't know in each case, and that would be another discussion all together, but we like to talk alot about the fraudulant data observed, I have heard reports that in some of the bones uncovered, where rptillian and mammalian jaws coiside, it is because they are bones of two distinctly different animals. This would leave one to wonder what is truth and what is not. Do not misunderstand me, there have been observations that would suggest E, my point however is that the observations are inconclusive.
because of the insistance by YECs that kinds are all uniquely created. note that they seem to be uniquely created complete with all the errors in them too, from the passage of the recurent laryngeal nerve through to ERVs.I have heard this arguement made several times on this thread, and I simply fail to see where you are getting this assumption. According to the biblical record, it is highly possible for kind to mean species and is a workable theory. So why are you then asserting that C require an additional definition for species. That is no more a requirement for the TOC than it is for the TOE. You are going to have to explain to me how C requires a more hard definition of kind than species, because it simply doesn't make sense in light of the original theory.
but what we have here is a completely unique adult breeding form. caterpillars cannot breed, so the comparison is irrelevant. you claimed that salamanders cannot make fishy creatures, I refuted that claim, that is all.Do each of these instances produce a new and different species? If yes, then it could be assumed that the theory of C would predict that it cannot happen, at least to the degree that the animal could reproduce the change. If no, then I would guess that it is possible in the C theory. So it all hinges on how science defines species. So let me ask you, are they then new species?
The problem with your point as I have already discussed, is that the neotenic is not a new species, but rather a neonate form of an already existing species. Just as a catapillar is not a new species of a butterfly, a neonate is not a different species of a salamander.note that creationists do not object to the formation of new species, their claim is an historical one; that there is no common ancestry. this goes against all the evidence (which you claim is inconclusive without detailing why)
Here is the problem: We have discovered many thousands of dinosaur fossils. Every single one dates older than 65 million years old. We have discovered many thousands of hominid (human and near-human) fossils. Every one of them dates less than 8 million years old. Now how can you explain that? The only likely explanation is that dinosaurs lived millions of years before hominids. Do you accept that conclusion?razzelflabben said:Now I don't know the actual numbers of fossil records, but I would imagine the numbers are similar or worse, so how then, does less than 1% of the data reviewed equal factual evidence? I am saying that it does not prove anything except that we have a lot more fossils to study.
razzelflabben said:What historical accounts are we relying on that say there was a time when there were neither dogs nor cats.
The amount of fossil records currently exposed, by the shear volume are inconclusive evidence. In order for there to be conclusive evidence, we would have to 1. have eye witness accounts, which is impossible due to the presumption that man did not exist at that time either, or 2. we would have had to had examined the vast majority of fossil remains, in and of itself an impossible task. Therefore the idea that dogs and cats have never existed in our ancient world, is an unproven theory. So to clear things up from the start, this is an assumption based on theory.
It is possible, however, I highly doubt this to be the case.
Remember when I said that the adaptability of animals to their environment is why I doubt that evidence will ever be found to support the evolution of animals crossing the species lines. In order for them to cross the species lines, it would be necessary for them to first be in the same family.
No, I think it is more likely that the species existed as seperate species from the beginning of creation.
razzelflabben said:And it is this sequence of many many many speciations that have not been proven or observed and what identifies E in contract to C.
To require C to not allow a fuzziness to their definition is not playing by the same rules and proves nothing.
What about God creating the animals to adapt to the world around them?
To get adaptability, you need:
a) a mechanism which introduces variants into the gene pool and the organism (mutation, sexual sortation), and
Am I understanding you correctly? In the case of the neonate salamander, one would need the lack of (I think it is) iodine to create the variant.
b) a mechanism which selects, spreads and preserves the adaptive variants while ignoring or repressing the others (natural selection).
Again, am I getting your point or am I missing it? The neonate is able to reproduce in it's neonate state.
But we have not seen that change over generations, only suspect that it occurs, that is what makes E theory not fact.
But notice your own words here, it may lead not fact that it does lead to, but rather the possibility that it could.
It is equally possible that there was a creator that created the adaptability we currently see in the species and that it has nothing to do with E at all.
Not if reproductive abilities are lost. Which is always a possibility and data would suggest that this possibility exists.
And this fuzziness should pertain to both groups, and all theories.
I did not say that it was a manipulation of the data, only the manipulation of the definition,
Razz quote So if the E wants to prove that E is fact, all that is required is to manipulate a fuzzy definition of species and fit the observations. end of quote
In other words, depending on how I define the fuzzy areas, I can claim that the neopate salamander is a different species.
C can accept this fuzziness due to the adaptability that God created within the species.
Because of the vastness of the universe and the adaptability observed within the species, C can easily accept this fuzziness in nature.
No, I don't. All have been thoroughly defined elsewhere. If you are even attempting to debate these topics, you should familiarise yourself with the definitions of these theories, and not rely on those you are discussing the issue with to tell you what they are. I also do not need to define what YOU are; what you are is irrelevant to this conversation. I have addressed some of the points you have posted; I have also noted how those poitns and my rebuttal of them reflects on creationism. Whether or not you are a YEC is irrelevant.razzelflabben said:Okay, if this is your stand, then before I can address any of your posts, you will have to define what E is, what C is, what ID is, and what I am, for I have posted my beliefs on the issue and your definitions do not fit. Once you give complete and accurate definitions for each, maybe we can have a reasonable discussion so that we are one the same page.
The Bellman said:Who is suggesting that we throw away decades of observeration? Your error lies in thinking that decades of observation "prove" that animals reproduce after their own kind.
I'm not "stuck back on proving the YEC false." It has been proven false to the satisfaction of thw world's scientists (who know vastly more about the subject than you or I). What I have been doing is demonstrating that one of the major flaws of creationism is that they cannot even define the most important biological definition necessary to creationism - that fo "kind".
I've no idea what you mean by this. Are you talking about creatinoism? Like it or not, it HAS been falsified to the satisfaction of virtually all of the world's scientists.razzelflabben said:We must not be talking about the same theory.
This is false. No definition of species fits what you say above. Crossing species lines has been observed, time and time again. Google for "speciation" and you will see a very large number of observed instances of speciation.razzelflabben said:To cross species lines would means, a cat being from the species of dog. This is not proven by any means that I currently know of and is theory based on the possibility that science has observed. So it the possibility that species lines are not crossed. Thus both are theories. A mastif and a yorky, are subspecies of a bigger group called species, as I understand clasifications. Am I missing something important here?
Again you demonstrate that you do not know what a species is. Speciation (evolution over species lines) has been observed many times, thus falsifying creationism if it attempts to use the species as the line over which evolution cannot cross. To avoid this, creationists instead say that evolution cannot cross "kind" lines - but they cannot define what a "kind" is.razzelflabben said:Again, that would depend on the definition of species. I have not seen sufficient evidence to suggest that a salamander can viably sustain a mutation that would produce an offspring vastly different from itself. Remember that fuzzyness in the definition of species. To falsify C on the grounds that that line is fuzzy, grossly steps of the line of the scientific methodology we have discussed earlier. Instead, it suggests more discussion as to defining species on both side, not just one.
Then I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Evolution does not require a specific definition of species. Evolutionary theory dictates that all lines between groups of aminals - species, phylum, genera, etc - are, in fact, arbitrary, because all animals descended from the same, common ancestor. There are NO lines between animals which evolution cannot cross. For this reason, evolutionary theory does not need a definition of species, or phylum, or any other term for a group of animals - these labels are for convenience only.razzelflabben said:I have heard here how E does not require a specific definition for species to be proven, I differ with this assumption. I think that if E cannot be more specific in it's definition of species, it cannot ever be proven or disprove C. Why, because the whole theory relies on the change from one species to another. It makes it or breaks it on this one point. So if the E wants to prove that E is fact, all that is required is to manipulate a fuzzy definition of species and fit the observations. And the E finds this acceptable all the while saying that the C cannot do the same thing. It is double standards like this that leave many to question the entire theory of E rather than just parts of the theory. Both theories hinge on the definition of species! It is up to both to come up with a definition that is testable.
Claims regarding evolutionary theory have been examined to see if they are fraudulent. They have been examined by the toughest judges there are - other scientists, who regularly peer-review any and all claims by other scientists. On several occassions, scientists have, in fact, explosed frauds and errors perpetuated regarding evolution.razzelflabben said:Now if everytime the C have evidence to support there claims, it is considered fraud, I wonder why we should believe the data that supports E without first examining it to see if it is fraudulant? I am not saying that it is not possible, only that the data presented is inconclusive. inconclusive data leaves room for other theories does it not?
Then you should research it further. There are not conflicting reports, and there is conclusive evidence - the noachim flood did not happen. Not only is it physically impossible, but the story of Noah's ark (the animals on the boat) is so far from physically possible it is laughable.razzelflabben said:As I have said, I haven't fully researched the flood data but the last time I looked at the info, there were conflicting reports and inconclusive evidence. BTW, how large of an area would be required to house three forth of the known species of animals, (by two's), over three forths of the animal species known are insects, how much room do they take up? source The Handy Bug Answer Book.
The reason creationism and evolution "play by different rules" (as regards the definition of "species" and "kind") is because the definition of "kind" is crucial to creationism; the definition of "species" is not crucial to evolutionary theory.razzelflabben said:The only good discussing the definition for species would have is that E and C would be better able to communicate rather than simply arguing back and forth not getting any closer to understanding each other. It is fine to have fuzzy lines, as long as everyone in the discussion is able to "play" with the same fuzziness. To require C to not allow a fuzziness to their definition is not playing by the same rules and proves nothing. Both theories are reliant on the definition of species, both should have the same right to interpret the fuzzy areas and explain thier view accordingly
Adaptaion IS evolution.razzelflabben said:What about God creating the animals to adapt to the world around them? That would stand to reason as being a viable explaination for adaptability from a C standpoint and one that cannot be disproven. To prove it, one would have to remove God from the equasion and then dispove the TOE which currently is no more possible than disproving the existance of God.
We have, indeed, seen that change over generations, in field, laboratory and in the fossil record. That is what makes evolutionary theory both theory AND fact.razzelflabben said:But we have not seen that change over generations, only suspect that it occurs, that is what makes E theory not fact.
The adaptability we currently see in the species is evolution. That is what makes evolution both theory and fact and creationism neither.razzelflabben said:It is equally possible that there was a creator that created the adaptability we currently see in the species and that it has nothing to do with E at all. That is exactly what makes both theories and neither fact.
It can't be fuzzy because creationism REQUIRES that it not be fuzzy. There are no animals that are "between" kinds - that is impossible. The theory insists that there are "kinds" that are rigidly defined and over which evolution can never cross.razzelflabben said:Why can't it be fuzzy? Who set this rule? Were the animals listed someplace and I missed it? The theory leaves some room for fuzziness which is why there can be many different threads of the same theory, for example, the YEC.
Right now, I won't even try to address the questions you are asking because they totally evade the point I was making, thus getting off topic again.
The point I was making is that the shear amount of fossil evidence, or lack thereof, makes the observations inconclusive. For example, what percent of fossil evidence has been uncovered and studied?
Well, I don't know in each case, and that would be another discussion all together, but we like to talk alot about the fraudulant data observed, I have heard reports that in some of the bones uncovered, where rptillian and mammalian jaws coiside, it is because they are bones of two distinctly different animals.
According to the biblical record, it is highly possible for kind to mean species and is a workable theory. So why are you then asserting that C require an additional definition for species.
can a mesonyx vary so much it becomes a dog or a cat? can a theropod vary so much it becomes a bird. can a land bound animal vary so much that it becomes a seal, can a seal vary so much that it becomes totally water born? none of these limits are ever defined in the creationist model, however they are still claimed to be there.
Do each of these instances produce a new and different species? [snip] So let me ask you, are they then new species?
The problem with your point as I have already discussed, is that the neotenic is not a new species, but rather a neonate form of an already existing species. Just as a catapillar is not a new species of a butterfly, a neonate is not a different species of a salamander.
Why can't it be fuzzy? Who set this rule?
because this is the claim that the creationist makes against evolution i.e. life cannot have a common ancestor because all kinds were created independently.
you continually make this statement of inconclusivity without ever adressing any of the evidence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?