Challenging Evolution

[The Bellman]

In fact, it is very narrow minded to assume that C or ID cannot add anything to our understanding of this world.

Yup. And it's very narrow minded to assume that the idea of a flat earth, or a geo-centric universe cannot add anything to our understanding of this world, either, right?

Please. False ideas don't add anything to our understanding of the world.

 

[pureone]

1) Kind... see Genesis chapters 1 and 6.

2) Genesis states that animals will bring forth after their "kind"

yes, so is it according to whether they are chordates? mammals, birds, vertebrates, microorganisms? That is what we are asking for. A definition of what "kind" is as used in genesis. you have provided a circular type argument. We ask, "what does it mean in genesis by 'Kind'", and then are told to look it up in genesis.

3) The Inerrancy of God's Word. If He created them.. then he ought to know.

no, he means what mechanism keeps them there? sorry.

Wow, I did better than "many creations".

no, about par or worse.

 

[Arikay]

And that means Absolutely nothing when it comes to a useful definition of Kinds. Which you need if you want to claim creationism is science.

A useful definition of Kinds would allow us to organize animals. Currently your definition is useless.

So far you haven't done better than most creationists but given the standard non answer.

1) Kind... see Genesis chapters 1 and 6.

2) Genesis states that animals will bring forth after their "kind"

3) The Inerrancy of God's Word. If He created them.. then he ought to know.

Wow, I did better than "many creations".

Trinity

 

[1Trinity3]

And that means Absolutely nothing when it comes to a useful definition of Kinds. Which you need if you want to claim creationism is science.

A useful definition of Kinds would allow us to organize animals. Currently your definition is useless.



So far you haven't done better than most creationists but given the standard non answer.

Kind = An animal that reproduces another animal whose traits are vastly similar.



Just because a “species” is defined as inter-fertile does not necessarily mean they animals that are not inter-fertile are not of the same kind.



This is a phony argument to try to scare YECs aware from the facts. Just because a YECs definition of Kind does not match up to your inconsistent definition of species…. does not necessarily mean that ours is incorrect and your is correct. Both are problematic and have holes in them.



The main difference is is a YECs is wrapped up in a few pages of the Bible and yours has taken volumes and volumes to try to explain and still has problems with.



Blessings,

Trinity

 

[1Trinity3]

yes, so is it according to whether they are chordates? mammals, birds, vertebrates, microorganisms?

That is what we are asking for. A definition of what "kind" is as used in genesis. you have provided a circular type argument. We ask, "what does it mean in genesis by 'Kind'", and then are told to look it up in genesis.



no, he means what mechanism keeps them there? sorry.



no, about par or worse.

Man wrote the rules for taxonomy. I am not going to say His definition is wrong simply because it doesn’t fit your paradigm. If you don’t like His definition, then use “species, class, phyla” what ever… your choice.



Trinity

 

[1Trinity3]

We don't entertain arguments that have been proven false and belong on pratt lists.

Then why are you endorsing a Theory whose trunk relies on spontaneous generation?



Trinity

 

[The Bellman]

Kind = An animal that reproduces another animal whose traits are vastly similar.



Just because a “species” is defined as inter-fertile does not necessarily mean they animals that are not inter-fertile are not of the same kind.



This is a phony argument to try to scare YECs aware from the facts. Just because a YECs definition of Kind does not match up to your inconsistent definition of species…. does not necessarily mean that ours is incorrect and your is correct. Both are problematic and have holes in them.



The main difference is is a YECs is wrapped up in a few pages of the Bible and yours has taken volumes and volumes to try to explain and still has problems with.



Blessings,

Trinity

The problem is that you don't HAVE a definition of 'kind'. Despite repeated requests, no creationist can give one. Your "An animal that reproduces another animal whose traits are vastly similar." is no better than all the other failed attempts. What does "vastly similar" mean? Is a donkey vastly similar to a horse? What about a zebra? A mule?

 

[The Bellman]

Then why are you endorsing a Theory whose trunk relies on spontaneous generation?



Trinity

We're not. Spontaneous generation was disproved over a century ago. If you are referring to abiogenesis - which is quite a different thing - evolution doesn't rely on it. If it were proven tomorrow that aboigenesis were completely impossible, it would not change evolutionary theory in the slightest.

 

[1Trinity3]

The problem is that you don't HAVE a definition of 'kind'. Despite repeated requests, no creationist can give one. Your "An animal that reproduces another animal whose traits are vastly similar." is no better than all the other failed attempts. What does "vastly similar" mean? Is a donkey vastly similar to a horse? What about a zebra? A mule?

According to your taxonomy, Gulls that are not inter-fertile, are different species. However, they are still a Gull. Look like a Gull. Walk like a Gull. I'm sure thy even smell like a Gull. However... they are still the same KIND of bird – a GULL. Yet, a different species. As I said before... both are problematic and prove absolutely NOTHING in advancing your theory.



Trinity

 

[1Trinity3]

We're not. Spontaneous generation was disproved over a century ago. If you are referring to abiogenesis - which is quite a different thing - evolution doesn't rely on it. If it were proven tomorrow that aboigenesis were completely impossible, it would not change evolutionary theory in the slightest.

Then where does your "Tree of Life" begin?

Trinity

 

[Arikay]

Based on that definition, Apes and Man can easily be related, as long as each evolutionary step doesn't completly change the animal (it doesn't) then each step in evolution is within a kind.
for example,
•Early land Mammals didn't give birth to whales, they gave birth to an animal with traits vastly similar to it, except with slightly webbed fingers.
•Slightly webbed finger mammals give birth to an animal with traits vastly similar to it, except that their nostrils are slightly farther back on its head.
Etc.
• The Mesocetus (very similar to modern whales) gives birth to a whale that is vastly similar to it, but slightly more adapted to the water.
•A land mammal has just evolved into a water mammal without ever "changing kinds."

Or would you like to change your definition now?


A YEC is wrapped up in a few pages of the bible, so you mean all those creationist sites are just BS, and the claim that the earth is 6000 years old is BS too? Ok, I can live with that.

Kind = An animal that reproduces another animal whose traits are vastly similar.



Just because a “species” is defined as inter-fertile does not necessarily mean they animals that are not inter-fertile are not of the same kind.



This is a phony argument to try to scare YECs aware from the facts. Just because a YECs definition of Kind does not match up to your inconsistent definition of species…. does not necessarily mean that ours is incorrect and your is correct. Both are problematic and have holes in them.



The main difference is is a YECs is wrapped up in a few pages of the Bible and yours has taken volumes and volumes to try to explain and still has problems with.



Blessings,

Trinity

 

[Arikay]

And you have just shown how little you even understand what you are argueing against.

If I said,
"Why do you worship a god that claims to be a vampire?
christianity is obviously false because vampires don't exist."

Would you believe I had a good grasp of christianity or would you think I didn't have a clue what I was talking about?

Just to repeat what others have said:
Modern abiogenesis is NOT spontaneous generation.
The theory of Evolution could care less where life came from. This means that abiogenesis is NOT part of evolution.

Then why are you endorsing a Theory whose trunk relies on spontaneous generation?



Trinity

 

[pureone]

Then why are you endorsing a Theory whose trunk relies on spontaneous generation?



Trinity

I don't. that is a strawman argument. Evolution works on the principle that life exists and starts from that point foreward. Spontaneous generation is nothing like abiogenesis. you are relying on science which disproves spont. gen, so I will tell you there is scientific evidence that ammino acids can self assemble, which then allows for proteins to self assemble (which they do) which allows for protocells/proteinoids to self assemble, which they do, and which then allows for self assembly of RNA, which happens and happened, and this allows for the assembly of DNA through RNA.

So this is not spont. gen. Who has been bearing false witness and telling you it is?

So science is only valid if you think it "supports" your theory?

 

[1Trinity3]

Based on that definition, Apes and Man can easily be related, as long as each evolutionary step doesn't completly change the animal (it doesn't) then each step in evolution is within a kind.

for example,

•Early land Mammals didn't give birth to whales, they gave birth to an animal with traits vastly similar to it, except with slightly webbed fingers.

•Slightly webbed finger mammals give birth to an animal with traits vastly similar to it, except that their nostrils are slightly farther back on its head.

Etc.

• The Mesocetus (very similar to modern whales) gives birth to a whale that is vastly similar to it, but slightly more adapted to the water.

•A land mammal has just evolved into a water mammal without ever "changing kinds."



Or would you like to change your definition now?

Nope.

Apes and Man ARE in fact vastly different.

“Early Land mammals” are only Evolutionary dogma.

Decent/Accent up and down your precious tree has not be demonstrated.



Therefore your argument is meaningless dogma.



Trinity

 

[The Bellman]

According to your taxonomy, Gulls that are not inter-fertile, are different species. However, they are still a Gull. Look like a Gull. Walk like a Gull. I'm sure thy even smell like a Gull. However... they are still the same KIND of bird – a GULL. Yet, a different species. As I said before... both are problematic and prove absolutely NOTHING in advancing your theory.



Trinity

To say they are still a gull demonstrates nothing. Species are fuzzily defined precisely because species boundaries themselves, are fuzzy. Evolution proposes that species can and do evolve across species lines...so the difference between species is always gradual. The species definition is neither problematic nor is it SUPPOSED to advance the theory.

On the other hand, the "kind" used by creationists is crucial to the creationism. They propose that animals can evolve withIN their kind, but cannot possibly evolve across kind-lines - yet they cannot define what a kind is.

Evolution could completely drop the idea of a species with no effect; creationism could not drop the idea of a kind; it is integral to creationism - yet they can't even define it!

Then where does your "Tree of Life" begin?

Trinity

It begins with the first living organism, of course.

 

[1Trinity3]

pureone wrote: I don't. that is a strawman argument. Evolution works on the principle that life exists and starts from that point foreward.

Most Evo's distant themselves from this arguement because they know it is necessary for their theory... but impossible.

Spontaneous generation is nothing like abiogenesis. you are relying on science which disproves spont. gen, so I will tell you there is scientific evidence that ammino acids can self assemble, which then allows for proteins to self assemble (which they do) which allows for protocells/proteinoids to self assemble, which they do, and which then allows for self assembly of RNA, which happens and happened, and this allows for the assembly of DNA through RNA. So this is not spont. gen. Who has been bearing false witness and telling you it is?

Really... care to cite.

So science is only valid if you think it "supports" your theory?

Only if it conforms to the scientific method. The rest is conjecture and falls outside of science.

Trinity

 

[1Trinity3]

The Bellman wrote:
To say they are still a gull demonstrates nothing. Species are fuzzily defined precisely because species boundaries themselves, are fuzzy.

I see. Its OK for taxonomy to be fuzzy... even though years and years of research have been dedicated to perfecting it... and when the Bible is equally "fuzzy", then that is just unacceptable?

Evolution proposes that species can and do evolve across species lines...so the difference between species is always gradual. The species definition is neither problematic nor is it SUPPOSED to advance the theory.

Then we should see some of the transitions occuring... or contained in the fossil record. Funny... we don't.

On the other hand, the "kind" used by creationists is crucial to the creationism. They propose that animals can evolve withIN their kind, but cannot possibly evolve across kind-lines - yet they cannot define what a kind is.

Ridiculos I know. Sort of like like ALL organisms coming from a mas of mold.

Trinity

 

[Ishmael Borg]

Apes and Man ARE in fact vastly different.

Please differentiate them for us.

“Early Land mammals” are only Evolutionary dogma.

Even if Genesis were fact, there would be "early land mammals" (they would appear before plain-old-everyday-today land mammals...

Decent/Accent up and down your precious tree has not be demonstrated.

Show us evidence that disproves homo erectus as a possible ancestor.

Therefore your argument is meaningless dogma.

Look up "dogma" in the dictionary, then learn something about science.



Trinity[/QUOTE]

 

[The Bellman]

Most Evo's distant themselves from this arguement because they know it is necessary for their theory... but impossible.

False. It is NOT necessary for the theory.

 

[The Bellman]

I see. Its OK for taxonomy to be fuzzy... even though years and years of research have been dedicated to perfecting it... and when the Bible is equally "fuzzy", then that is just unacceptable?

It's okay for taxonomy to be fuzzy, because species ARE fuzzy. It's not okay for creationism to be fuzzy (about 'kinds') because kinds AREN"T fuzzy. Surely that's easy for you to understand?