Challenging Evolution

[The Bellman]

As I have already said, I will happily accept the definition of species as science identifies it, provided that both sides understand the fuzziness of the definition. And since I take the bible literally, I would assume you could call me a C since the theory originated in the bible. However, in order for the discussion to continue, you also must do away with the notion that you already know what I believe because you have argued or read about C.

To begin with, I'm not necessarily arguing with you; I'm arguing with creationism. If creationism is a position you hold, then I'm arguing with you; if it isn't, then I'm not. I don't assume that you are a creationist necessarily.

Creationism can't accept the definition of species as science identifies it and take "kind" to mean "species", because by every scientific definition of "species", creationism has been falsified by the fact that cross-species evolution has been observed. That's why creationists are constantly asked to define "kind", because NO accepted definition of "species" fits the bill, in terms of being evolutionarily inviolate.

So using "species" won't help creationism. They postulate a "kind", and it is they who must come up with a definition of such - and no usage of "species" will help them. As stated above, all definitions of species are fuzzy precisely because species themsevles are fuzzy - as evolutionary theory explains. Kinds, however, are definitely NOT fuzzy - that's the whole point. They are strictly defined boundaries over which evoltuion canNOT cross. Yet creationists, despite repeated requests, can never identify those boundaries, or define exactly what a "kind" is.

 

[JohnR7]

So basically you don't like it so you are going to ignore it?
Speciation Has been observed, and thus if you define "kinds" as "species" then creationism has been falsified.

Why, does the Bible say that one "kind" can not change into another? There are so many strawman arguements on here, on both sides, so that I am beginning to believe that there is a total break down in the discussion.

Evolutionists expect creationists to make a effort to understand science. But they are totally unwilling to reciprocate and make a effort to understand the Bible. All they ever seem to do is throw out one strawman arguement after another.

Why do you come to a christian forum, if you have no interest in learning anything at all about christianity?

 

[mrversatile48]

Why, does the Bible say that one "kind" can not change into another? There are so many strawman arguements on here, on both sides, so that I am beginning to believe that there is a total break down in the discussion.

Evolutionists expect creationists to make a effort to understand science. But they are totally unwilling to reciprocate and make a effort to understand the Bible. All they ever seem to do is throw out one strawman arguement after another.

Why do you come to a christian forum, if you have no interest in learning anything at all about christianity?

HRE, as promised, here is a great link @ mutations:-

www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter5.asp

Believe it or not, I've just done a 40-minute reply, hit a wrong key & lost it all!

The main question for all doubters is, do you care enough @ your eternal destiny, & the quality of life now, to study Man's Maker's Manual: the Bible?

 

[mrversatile48]

HRE, as promised, here is a great link @ mutations:-

www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter5.asp

Believe it or not, I've just done a 40-minute reply, hit a wrong key & lost it all!

The main question for all doubters is, do you care enough @ your eternal destiny, & the quality of life now, to study Man's Maker's Manual: the Bible?

God's timing is amazing!

The last post fit perfectly with what God laid on my heart all thru the 48 hrs since I was last here

Many ask evidence of God's existence, but then say Christians can't preach!

Many fulfilled Bible prophecies prove God's wisdom & power - see www.prophezine.com

Many truly transformed lives also prove God's wisdom, love & power - see www.Heinvites.com

Romans 12:1 could be translated that the only rational, reasonable response to all the wonderful things that God has done for us is to give ourselves to Him 100%

"I beseech you therefore.by the mercies of God, to present yourselves as a living sacrifice, holy & acceptable to God"

God bless!

Ian

 

[gluadys]

If all groups accept the fuzziness, not at all, it seems to work fine for me.

Yes, as Bellman has pointed out, the fuzziness of the definition is not a weakness of the definition itself. It is a reflection of the fact that in nature, the distinctions between species really are fuzzy.

One can find every gradation from sub-species groups that are fully inter-fertile to species which are completely unable to inter-breed. You can find many groups that are capable of inter-breeding, but don't. You can find groups that are not capable of inter-breeding in a natural setting, but if you manipulate the setting, can produce viable offspring.

The great plant geneticist Luther Burbank, was once able to get species of different genera (radish and cabbage) to form a viable hybrid. (Unfortunately, for his commercial ambitions, it had the leaves of a radish and the root of a cabbage.) But it is still an actual, self-reproducing species.

So it is nature itself that produces the fuzziness, and therefore the definition is also fuzzy.

This is exactly what Darwin foresaw to be the case. So the fuzziness of the lines between one species and another--especially in things like ring species, or newly-emergent salamander species, is something predicted by the TOE, and the fact that it is real becomes an evidence in favour of TOE.

The creationist "kind" on the other hand, is said to have clear boundaries. That is not what we find in nature until we go beyond the level of species.

 

[USincognito]

This post assumes that one adheres to the teachings of a man as it's authority. I maintain that the authority on the subject, is not Morris or any other man, but rather God through the knowlege He gives us through the Bible.

I really am nearing my wits end here, but since you're so tenacious I'm going to persue this.

1. I present a more comprehensive declaration of Creationisms tenets to you and give reasons why they are falsified by the actual evidence.
2. You tell me I'm being closed minded about the diversity of Creationist thought and suggest a book by a particular author.
3. I demonstrate conslusively that said author adheres to every one of both your two offered tenets and my three expanded tenets.
4. You respond by saying that no man is an authority, but the Bible is.

Then why did you even bother offering up Morris' book? Do you even realize you're turning your back on a source of authority that you yourself offered up? If you were going to turn on Henry Morris so quickly, why did you even bother bringing him or his book up in the first place?

The Genesis Record is a discussion of what is and is not possible in the Gen. account of the creation of the world. For example, the Gen. account of a literal 6 day creation, can be literal and longer than 6 days at the same time for the bible says that to God a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day. Therefore, one cannot know from the text which is referred to. A literal 24 hr. day or a span of time that is like a day to God. The book goes on to explain other theories involved in the day issue, but it points out these inexact issues, that many assume to exist in the TOC. This is why I recommended the book, not as a means of explaining what any teacher is putting forth, but as a way to begin to understand what is and is not in the original theory.

As I haven't read The Genesis Record, I cannot conclude what conclusions Morris presents in it as the "proper" interpretation of Genesis - I can only base that upon (unless I purchase a copy) his rules and regulations for the Institute for Creation Research - which he founded. His hedging of his bets on the six days of creation mean the world is either - based on Ussher - 6,000 years old or 11,000 years old - both of which have been falsified over and over and over and over and over..

Henry Morris is pure YEC with a Noah's flood as the reason for the geology we see on the Earth today. Whatever sort of hermoneutical gymnastics he might have given in The Genesis Record, his conclusions were obvious in The Genesis Flood, in his published record since the 1960s and in the ICRs statement of Faith. To suggest that his writings in any way deviate from the traditional Young Earth Creationism falsified in the 1830s is totally disengenuous.

 

[mrversatile48]

I must say that each Monday, I have conscientiously read the 8/10 pages that hit these threads over the weekend & that I do enjoy having my mind stretched

As always, I only have a short time, so I always just ask God what He wants me to say in the time available

Even before I managed to get on here again now, I felt God strongly say that He wants to communicate effectively with everyone, not just with academics

The past 90 mins, the phrase "can't see the wood for the trees" has come to me several times - so many here seem obsessed with minutiae & blind to the big picture

1 Corinthians 1:20-on says, very strongly, that God's wisdom far outstrips any man's, & that His strength far outstrips any man's too

Again, my apologies for earlier shock tactics causing offence: I am not into humiliating folk, or scoring minor points: my role is to reach lost souls with the good news of the gospel

If you read the above Bible passage, on www.BibleGateway.org you'll see that the apostle Paul likewise uses sarcasm to make his points

Jesus tore into the Pharisees as "hypocrites..vipers..& whitewashed walls"

God the Father used the same tactics in Isaiah 40/45, Job 38/40 etc
In each case, the motive is to make folk realise their need of the 1-&-only Saviour

As elsewhere says, "What can be shaken will be shaken, so that only what can't be shaken remains"

That is a prophecy especially for this climax generation of history

Just as Jesus & the Old Testament prophets foretold, all creation is groaning like a woman in labour giving birth

Only in recent decades has man had the power to poison all waters, burn all plants, & wipe out all human life - just as Revelation 6,8,9 & 16/19 forecast - (other Scriptures too)

I only have a few minutes

Many here have called, again & again, for clear evidence of creation

Try walking round with your eyes open

No 2 grains of sand are identical

Nor are any 2 snowflakes

Look at the detailed design in leaves..flowers..

"Every time I hear a new-born baby cry
or touch a leaf, or see the sky
then I know why I believe"

"I see the stars, I hear the rolling thunder
Thy power throughout the unuiverse displayed"

Romans 1:20-on say that "ever since the creation of the world, God's power & invisible qualities have been clearly seen in what was made, so that men are without excuse"

Verse 18 says that "God's wrath is revealed against wicked men who, by their wickedness, suppress the truth"

Proof only to the eye of faith, you may say?

But it takes really blind faith to value finite men's opinions more than the Almighty, All-Knowing Creator's

Folk talk much on this board as if to merely believe God exists is doing Him a big favor

But we must take God at His Word - "Let God be true & all men liars"

Jesus said that even the devil knows full well that there is a God - & trembles, because he knows he is rebelling against Him

That is the essence of sin: rebellion against God

Like the words of the crowd to Pilate:-

"Away with Him - crucify HIm - we will not have this Man reign over us!"

Evolution is a mere theory, set up & pursued to deceive folk into believing that man is god

"Each man does what is right in his own eyes"

But God is the Judge of all Earth

You can't judge Him

He judges you

"Faith is not of yourselves: it is the gift of God" - Ephesians 2:8/9 says more, but..

Must go!

Ian

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

Evolution is a mere theory, set up & pursued to deceive folk into believing that man is god

Ummmmmmmmmmmm

No

Evolution is a theory used to explain the diversity of organisms on this planet. It cares not about deities. Not one bit.

 

[razzelflabben]

Yes, as Bellman has pointed out, the fuzziness of the definition is not a weakness of the definition itself. It is a reflection of the fact that in nature, the distinctions between species really are fuzzy.

One can find every gradation from sub-species groups that are fully inter-fertile to species which are completely unable to inter-breed. You can find many groups that are capable of inter-breeding, but don't. You can find groups that are not capable of inter-breeding in a natural setting, but if you manipulate the setting, can produce viable offspring.

The great plant geneticist Luther Burbank, was once able to get species of different genera (radish and cabbage) to form a viable hybrid. (Unfortunately, for his commercial ambitions, it had the leaves of a radish and the root of a cabbage.) But it is still an actual, self-reproducing species.

So it is nature itself that produces the fuzziness, and therefore the definition is also fuzzy.

This is exactly what Darwin foresaw to be the case. So the fuzziness of the lines between one species and another--especially in things like ring species, or newly-emergent salamander species, is something predicted by the TOE, and the fact that it is real becomes an evidence in favour of TOE.

The creationist "kind" on the other hand, is said to have clear boundaries. That is not what we find in nature until we go beyond the level of species.

You had me up to this last two sentences, can I assume you are talking about specific aspects of the theory of C as put forth by teachers of the theory rather than the root theory itself?

I personally have never heard a C make the claim that kind has clear boundries. I have heard some in both camps try to make it so, but have never read it in the bible, not heard C claim it to be so. The kind as put forth in the original theory, has no specifications as far as I can tell.

 

[razzelflabben]

That's no good. EVERY definition of "species" we have is of no use to creationism, because we have repeatedly seen evolution cross these species boundaries. It is creationism which proposes a biological category (which it calls "kind") over which evolution can NEVER step - yet it cannot define this category. Creationists don't want to change anything, they want to evade the issue completely, because despite repeated appeals, no creationist has EVER come up with a definition of "kind" which even comes close to working.

This is an interesting assumption since I am C in that I literally believe the bible and I fully accept the scientific definition of species. Again, you are assuming what I and others believe before you even start the debate.

 

[Mistermystery]

Many here have called, again & again, for clear evidence of creation

The fact that we exsist is evidence of creation, wheter or not this happend at the hands of a deity is something one should make up personally.

Now what most people will ask of you is evidence for creation*ISM*. This is the belief that the world is only 6000 years old (this is testable), that a flood happend that wiped out all life on Earth safe for a couple of people in a boat (this is also testable), and that God created the world/universe/whatever in exactly 6 days (also testable).

Give me evidence for that.

But it takes really blind faith to value finite men's opinions more than the Almighty, All-Knowing Creator's

You're right. Men's interpretations/opinions of the bible are really blind.

Evolution is a mere theory, set up & pursued to deceive folk into believing that man is god

The theory of evolution says nothing about wheter or not a deity is involved. neither doe sit says that man is god.

 

[razzelflabben]

I think I can clear the confusion up for you., I think the following is what Bellman is trying to say.

Evolution is testable and has been tested and survived repeated attempts at falsification. There for it continues to be a valid scientific theory. However YEC has been tested and falsified therefore it is no longer a theory it is a falsified concept. Continuing to believe a falsified concept without correcting it is not science it is dogma in the face of evidence to the contrary.

I hope that helps.

Ghost

Sure that helps, but isn't it vital to the conversation to specify if the information being discussed falsifies YEC or C in and of itself.

 

[razzelflabben]

You are confusing the meanings of the word "theory". It can be a "theory" that the butler did it. However, that does not necessarily make it a scientific theory. Loosely speaking, a "theory" is a hypothesis, a possibility. However, to make it a scientific theory, it needs to be rather more.

Here are some of the definitions of the word "theory" (from dictionary.com):

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
3. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

(3) above would include the "loose" meaning of the word. By this meaning, creationism is certainly a theory. So is evolution, and so is the idea that our universe was sneezed out by a mutant star goat. However, as far as a scientific theory goes, (1) above is closer to the mark. By (1), evolutionary theory qualifies as a scientific theory, while both (2) and (3) do not. So we can see that while something can be a theory, that does not necessarily make it a scientific theory.

Now, as regards falsifiability, theories of all kinds can be falsified - that does not make them scientific. My theory that the butler did it could be falsified by his alibi...that does not make my theory scientific. Whether or not a theory is scientific does not hinge on whether or not it is falsifiable alone.

So, to answer your question above, creationism has been tested and falsified; it is thus a theory (loose sense of the word) that has been proven false. None of this makes it a scientific theory. Evolutionary theory, however, has been tested and NOT falsified (note that this does not make it proven). It, however, is a scientific theory, as can be seen from definition (1) above.

So, then why are we allowed to throw away decades of observations that prove that animals reproduce after their kind because C is falsified? How is it falsified when we have been observing this phenomina for as long as man has observed and recorded scientific observations? You are confusing me even more! Or are you still stuck back on proving the YEC false. I haven't heard a C for I can't even begin to know how many years actually claim that the earth is young and there is no room for anything else. I am sure this old school of thought still exists, but I seldom run into it.

 

[razzelflabben]

To begin with, I'm not necessarily arguing with you; I'm arguing with creationism. If creationism is a position you hold, then I'm arguing with you; if it isn't, then I'm not. I don't assume that you are a creationist necessarily.

Creationism can't accept the definition of species as science identifies it and take "kind" to mean "species", because by every scientific definition of "species", creationism has been falsified by the fact that cross-species evolution has been observed. That's why creationists are constantly asked to define "kind", because NO accepted definition of "species" fits the bill, in terms of being evolutionarily inviolate.

So using "species" won't help creationism. They postulate a "kind", and it is they who must come up with a definition of such - and no usage of "species" will help them. As stated above, all definitions of species are fuzzy precisely because species themsevles are fuzzy - as evolutionary theory explains. Kinds, however, are definitely NOT fuzzy - that's the whole point. They are strictly defined boundaries over which evoltuion canNOT cross. Yet creationists, despite repeated requests, can never identify those boundaries, or define exactly what a "kind" is.

I really think you would benefit from reading the original theory as put forth in the bible and not rely on teachers to interpret the theory for you. That might clear up a lot of this discussion.

 

[Jet Black]

The main question for all doubters is, do you care enough @ your eternal destiny, & the quality of life now, to study Man's Maker's Manual: the Bible?

is this an implicit suggestion that Christians who accept evolution are not christian? I would be really careful with such comments if I were you, of zourse, if you are talking to atheists, I suggest you take it to general apologetics, since such discussions are irrelevant here. It is possible to accept the entire body of science and still be christian.

 

[Jet Black]

.

 

[razzelflabben]

I really am nearing my wits end here, but since you're so tenacious I'm going to persue this.

1. I present a more comprehensive declaration of Creationisms tenets to you and give reasons why they are falsified by the actual evidence.
2. You tell me I'm being closed minded about the diversity of Creationist thought and suggest a book by a particular author.
3. I demonstrate conslusively that said author adheres to every one of both your two offered tenets and my three expanded tenets.
4. You respond by saying that no man is an authority, but the Bible is.

Then why did you even bother offering up Morris' book? Do you even realize you're turning your back on a source of authority that you yourself offered up? If you were going to turn on Henry Morris so quickly, why did you even bother bringing him or his book up in the first place?



As I haven't read The Genesis Record, I cannot conclude what conclusions Morris presents in it as the "proper" interpretation of Genesis - I can only base that upon (unless I purchase a copy) his rules and regulations for the Institute for Creation Research - which he founded. His hedging of his bets on the six days of creation mean the world is either - based on Ussher - 6,000 years old or 11,000 years old - both of which have been falsified over and over and over and over and over..

Henry Morris is pure YEC with a Noah's flood as the reason for the geology we see on the Earth today. Whatever sort of hermoneutical gymnastics he might have given in The Genesis Record, his conclusions were obvious in The Genesis Flood, in his published record since the 1960s and in the ICRs statement of Faith. To suggest that his writings in any way deviate from the traditional Young Earth Creationism falsified in the 1830s is totally disengenuous.

As stated, the book is not a statement of Morris's beliefs, but rather a discussion of what is and is not possible within the context of the TOC as stated in Gen. I am not saying that there is no bias to the book, but rather that it offers some understanding in the YEC camp of how this part of the theory is only theory and not fact, and how it relates to the original theory as presented in the book of Gen. Now one need not adhere to the bias in order to understand the possibilities built into the theory. In fact, as I remember reading the book many years ago, I remember reading the part about young earth vs. old earth. Up until reading the book, all I had ever heard from C was young earth. After reading the book, I was faced with deciding which I would hold too if I was going to be a C and I had to research in other places to come to a place of what I would accept as truth. The same for literal days, etc. In other words, the book opened up the possibilities for other beliefs than Young earth, and it was my first experience with different aspects to the TOC. That is why I suggested the book for those who maintain that the only C theory is YEC.

 

[Jet Black]

I really think you would benefit from reading the original theory as put forth in the bible and not rely on teachers to interpret the theory for you. That might clear up a lot of this discussion.

yes, and that is that many different kinds were made independently. the problem is that we don't see this happening at all. In genesis we have the fowl created before the land animals, but in reality we have arboreal dinosaurs before we have birds. we have whales before land animals, but whales are a mammal that went back into the sea.

next step is the ark. we have two of each kind put onto the ark. the problem there is that if we define kinds as species we end up with seceral million animals on the ark. if we define to too loosely, then we require hyperevolution after landfall. then there is the question of how we know if two animals are of a kind or a different kind, and there is no way to tell.

 

[The Bellman]

This is an interesting assumption since I am C in that I literally believe the bible and I fully accept the scientific definition of species. Again, you are assuming what I and others believe before you even start the debate.

I have nowhere assumed what you or others believe. I have been discussing creationism. If you are not a creationist, fine. If you are, fine. Regardless of your beliefs, I have been discussing creationism.

And a creationist can "fully accept the scientific definition of species" quite happily. What they canNOT do is use that definition as the definition of "kind".

 

[The Bellman]

So, then why are we allowed to throw away decades of observations that prove that animals reproduce after their kind because C is falsified? How is it falsified when we have been observing this phenomina for as long as man has observed and recorded scientific observations? You are confusing me even more! Or are you still stuck back on proving the YEC false. I haven't heard a C for I can't even begin to know how many years actually claim that the earth is young and there is no room for anything else. I am sure this old school of thought still exists, but I seldom run into it.

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".