Created after its own kind

[DiscipleDave]

If evolution was True, then why are there no NEW kinds of animals being created?

Consider these verses:

Gen:1:12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

If evolution was True, should we not have appleorange trees? Why is it apple trees only produce apples, and orange trees only produce oranges ? Scientists for hundreds of years have tried to cross breed different fruits to produce someothing NEW, yet have always failed. Now you might get a different variety of the same plant, such as red apples, yellow apples, or green apples, yet are they all apples. So then, one single fruit cell, made apple plants and orange plants, yet scientist today CAN't produce the same effect, they can't have one cell produce apples and oranges. But apples always produce after its own kind, APPLES. And oranges, guess what, only produce ORANGES after its own kind.

Gen:1:24: And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Again, Dogs only create dogs, and cats only produce cats. Do we have a new Creature which is a Catdog ?
Dogs can mate with a cat, and it does not produce anything. Scientists have tried, ON PURPOSE, to create other species of animals, a mixture of two types of animals, and EVERY ONE OF THEM, FAILED, they could not do it. Now supposedly, according to evolutionists, a single living cell created all life on this planet, that single cell split and created a dog, and the other part was a cat, then they split again can created apes, horses, pigs, and fish, then the cells of the ape split and created a human life. somewhere down this line of thought created bologna, and hogwash.

Funny thing here, humans have only produced humans. Every single animal on this planet only produces its own kind. SCIENTIFICALLY speaking based on the evidence we have before us, if you see a dog, that dogs parents were dogs, and their parents were dogs, and that parents parents were dogs, and that parents parent's, parents were dogs. Trace back that dogs lineage and i bet you with all truth, Everyone of them were dogs, because scientifically speaking dogs produce ONLY dogs, cats ONLY produce cats, and humans ONLY produce humans.

If evolution were True, i assure you someone or something, would be of two different kinds, ie a catdog. Two different kinds of animals would be in one NEW animal. This is just not so, for Scriptures teach exactly as it is today, cats only produce cats, dogs only dogs, and listen carefully humans only produce humans. Oh and for those who believe we come from apes, let me point this out to you also, for thousands of years now, apes have only produced what ?????? Yep Apes.

Let the Scriptures be True and humans a liar.

In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ
DiscipleDave
^i^

 

[Punchy]

If evolution were True, i assure you someone or something, would be of two different kinds, ie a catdog.

What "created kind" is a platypus?

 

[Jase]

If evolution was True, then why are there no NEW kinds of animals being created?

First you have to define what a "kind" is.

Again, Dogs only create dogs, and cats only produce cats. Do we have a new Creature which is a Catdog ?
Dogs can mate with a cat, and it does not produce anything. Scientists have tried, ON PURPOSE, to create other species of animals, a mixture of two types of animals, and EVERY ONE OF THEM, FAILED, they could not do it.

Well, evolution never says Cats will turn into dogs. Of course, we do have Ligers ( cross between lion and tiger).

Now supposedly, according to evolutionists, a single living cell created all life on this planet, that single cell split and created a dog, and the other part was a cat, then they split again can created apes, horses, pigs, and fish, then the cells of the ape split and created a human life. somewhere down this line of thought created bologna, and hogwash.

I don't think you quite get the concept of evolution.

Funny thing here, humans have only produced humans. Every single animal on this planet only produces its own kind. SCIENTIFICALLY speaking based on the evidence we have before us, if you see a dog, that dogs parents were dogs, and their parents were dogs, and that parents parents were dogs, and that parents parent's, parents were dogs. Trace back that dogs lineage and i bet you with all truth, Everyone of them were dogs, because scientifically speaking dogs produce ONLY dogs, cats ONLY produce cats, and humans ONLY produce humans.

And where in the theory of evolution is this ever disputed? Evolution does not say dogs will give birth to cats.

If evolution were True, i assure you someone or something, would be of two different kinds, ie a catdog. Two different kinds of animals would be in one NEW animal. This is just not so, for Scriptures teach exactly as it is today, cats only produce cats, dogs only dogs, and listen carefully humans only produce humans. Oh and for those who believe we come from apes, let me point this out to you also, for thousands of years now, apes have only produced what ?????? Yep Apes.

We not only came from apes, we are apes.

Let the Scriptures be True and humans a liar.

There is a difference between scripture being true, and Creationists misinterpreting it.

 

[gluadys]

If evolution was True, then why are there no NEW kinds of animals being created?


If evolution was True, should we not have appleorange trees? Why is it apple trees only produce apples, and orange trees only produce oranges ?

Actually, if evolution is true, we cannot have naturally occurring appleorange trees. Such a thing would falsify the theory of evolution.

Again, Dogs only create dogs, and cats only produce cats. Do we have a new Creature which is a Catdog ?

No, but we have fossil remains of possible common ancestors of bears and dogs. If evolution is true, we may find a common ancestor of cats and dogs, but we will never find a new creature that is both cat and dog.

Evolution predicts common ancestors, not common descendants. The suggestion that we should get common descendants from groups that have diverged shows a serious misunderstanding of how evolution works. Successful hybrids only occur among populations that have not significantly diverged from each other. And sometimes, especially in plants, these do produce new species.

Now supposedly, according to evolutionists, a single living cell created all life on this planet,

No, again a misunderstanding. I don't think scientists even contemplate that there ever was just a single cell. What is known is that all early life was unicellular, but these were unicellular populations, not a single cell.

that single cell split and created a dog, and the other part was a cat, then they split again can created apes, horses, pigs, and fish, then the cells of the ape split and created a human life. somewhere down this line of thought created bologna, and hogwash.

Yes, that's hogwash alright. Good thing that is not taught in science class.

If evolution were True, i assure you someone or something, would be of two different kinds, ie a catdog.

No, you could only find that if evolution is false. God could make a special creation of a catdog, but evolution could never produce such a creature. So if you want to show evolution is false, find a catdog or similar compound creature.

 

[Assyrian]

If evolution was True, then why are there no NEW kinds of animals being created?

Isn't a Jack Russell a kind of terrier?

 

[DiscipleDave]

No, you could only find that if evolution is false. God could make a special creation of a catdog, but evolution could never produce such a creature. So if you want to show evolution is false, find a catdog or similar compound creature.

Is it not True that evolutionists have been trying to find the missing link for a very long time ? The missing link being one person with both human and ape parts ? This then would prove evolution to be True.

If arceoligists were to dig up a skeleton dated thousands of years old, that was a mixture of cat and dog, It would be broadcasted all over the world, that a missing link in the evolutionary chain has been found, they have found the remains of an animal the was prior to any cats or dogs, that his breed of animal is what evolved into both, yet separate, species of cats and of dogs. Which would prove evolution is True.

Are they not still searching for remains of humans with part ape in them, proving evolution to be True? yes they are still even today trying to do this. Now granted the thinking of evolutionists probably changed considerably when they found out they can't be right, therefore now believe even as you do. Because previously, evolutionists believed all life came from one cell, and this is what they taught, i guess since this was disproven, they now claim they were many, what did you call them, uni-cells that were here in the Beginning, that created all species on the Earth? i never know what is being taught anymore, because as soon as proof comes up that disproves them, they come up with something else, so they do not have to lose face, and admit that they are wrong, instead, just look for other avenues that promote evolution.
So are evolutionists now teaching that there was more then one cell? i really don't know, they change so frequently, i can't keep up with what they believe. So are they teaching that there was more then one cell, that there was many cells now ?
lol, i am thankful, i merely believe what God says in His Words, that He created the Earth in 6 days, this i believe and do not question Him on this matter.

IN His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ
DiscipleDave
^i^

 

[Mallon]

People are so quick to hate what they clearly do not understand.

 

[Willtor]

Is it not True that evolutionists have been trying to find the missing link for a very long time ? The missing link being one person with both human and ape parts ? This then would prove evolution to be True.

If arceoligists were to dig up a skeleton dated thousands of years old, that was a mixture of cat and dog, It would be broadcasted all over the world, that a missing link in the evolutionary chain has been found, they have found the remains of an animal the was prior to any cats or dogs, that his breed of animal is what evolved into both, yet separate, species of cats and of dogs. Which would prove evolution is True.

Are they not still searching for remains of humans with part ape in them, proving evolution to be True? yes they are still even today trying to do this. Now granted the thinking of evolutionists probably changed considerably when they found out they can't be right, therefore now believe even as you do. Because previously, evolutionists believed all life came from one cell, and this is what they taught, i guess since this was disproven, they now claim they were many, what did you call them, uni-cells that were here in the Beginning, that created all species on the Earth? i never know what is being taught anymore, because as soon as proof comes up that disproves them, they come up with something else, so they do not have to lose face, and admit that they are wrong, instead, just look for other avenues that promote evolution.
So are evolutionists now teaching that there was more then one cell? i really don't know, they change so frequently, i can't keep up with what they believe. So are they teaching that there was more then one cell, that there was many cells now ?
lol, i am thankful, i merely believe what God says in His Words, that He created the Earth in 6 days, this i believe and do not question Him on this matter.

IN His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ
DiscipleDave
^i^

No, ancestors of humans (who were not humans) have been discovered. Also, evolution, insofar as its main thesis of common ancestry is concerned, is the same as when Charles Darwin proposed it. Many of the mechanisms are better understood, and this has led to revolutions within the theory, but the idea is still common ancestry.

Also, you might rethink some of your arguments. AiG has compiled a list of arguments they think creationists should not use.

 

[pastorkevin73]

There is a difference between scripture being true, and Creationists misinterpreting it.

I'd like to see you prove this one. Besides, what makes you think Creationists misinterprete scripture and your interpertation is correct?

 

[Jase]

I'd like to see you prove this one. Besides, what makes you think Creationists misinterprete scripture and your interpertation is correct?

I'm not saying my interpretation is necessarily correct. I think it's fairly obvious, at least to anyone who has a vested interest in science, that the mountain of evidence gained over the last few hundred years rules out a 6,000 year old Universe and a global flood. The mere fact alone that we see stars billions of light years away, and continue to find new ones that far aware rules out the 6,000 year old universe idea.

 

[crawfish]

You are completely misunderstanding evolution by making the original argument. The theory is that over billions of years, change has been introduced SLOWLY. No major change happened overnight. No species was born from the mother of another species.

Think about dogs. There is no species in the world that varies as much as the dog; from the Great Dane to the Chihuahua, they would seem to be completely different species. Yet they can breed (technically), and share the same ancestry. Breeding efforts have essentially force the evolutionary hand to come up with animals that look and act both very similar and very different.

 

[random_guy]

I'd like to see you prove this one. Besides, what makes you think Creationists misinterprete scripture and your interpertation is correct?

We don't know if our interpretations of the Scripture is right or not. However, we do know that evidence strongly suggests that the Creationist interpretation is wrong. It's easier to falsify theories than to prove theories. That's why there's no proofs for theories in science, instead, a theory is measured by how well it explains the evidence vs. how much contradictory evidence exist against it.

 

[Deamiter]

If arceoligists were to dig up a skeleton dated thousands of years old, that was a mixture of cat and dog, It would be broadcasted all over the world, that a missing link in the evolutionary chain has been found, they have found the remains of an animal the was prior to any cats or dogs, that his breed of animal is what evolved into both, yet separate, species of cats and of dogs. Which would prove evolution is True.

The common ancestor of cats and dogs was the same common ancestor of all carnivores and the split happened approximately 50 million years ago. If a cat/dog hybrid were found and dated to within a few thousand (or even million) years, it would utterly disprove all understanding of common ancestry!

Dogs and cats are really rather unrelated in terms of their morphology -- that's why you don't see dogs mauling with their paws or flipping mid-air, and you don't see cats walking on their toes like dogs.

Because previously, evolutionists believed all life came from one cell, and this is what they taught, i guess since this was disproven, they now claim they were many, what did you call them, uni-cells that were here in the Beginning, that created all species on the Earth? i never know what is being taught anymore, because as soon as proof comes up that disproves them, they come up with something else, so they do not have to lose face, and admit that they are wrong, instead, just look for other avenues that promote evolution.
So are evolutionists now teaching that there was more then one cell? i really don't know, they change so frequently, i can't keep up with what they believe. So are they teaching that there was more then one cell, that there was many cells now ?

You haven't heard of uni-cellular organisms? The point is that the first replicators were probably not a whole lot like cells as we see them today but more like molecular self-replicators that we DO observe today.

Anyway, because uni-cellular organisms don't generally reproduce sexually, they are notoriiously hard to pin down in a nested hierarchy because the little buggers can swap DNA. Because they swap DNA outside of reproduction, it is impossible to say whether we came from a single cell, and more accurate to say that we came from a population of uni-cellular organisms.

None of this information about uni-cellular organisms is particularly new (i.e. it's been around for the last century or so) and if you weren't aware that uni-cellular organisms swapped DNA (or even existed!) I'd suggest you blame your educators, not the scientific community.

 

[pastorkevin73]

I'm not saying my interpretation is necessarily correct. I think it's fairly obvious, at least to anyone who has a vested interest in science, that the mountain of evidence gained over the last few hundred years rules out a 6,000 year old Universe and a global flood. The mere fact alone that we see stars billions of light years away, and continue to find new ones that far aware rules out the 6,000 year old universe idea.

How old is the ToE? Wasn't in the 1800's that Darwin popularized this idea?

 

[crawfish]

I'd like to see you prove this one. Besides, what makes you think Creationists misinterprete scripture and your interpertation is correct?

Since creationists have a very narrow view of biblical interpretation, most interpretations are not available to them. Logically, this makes it more likely they're wrong.

I'm kidding. Sort of. However, what I see is that creationists interpret a passage, when interpret the facts and evidence around them to support that interpretation of that passage. Many of us are open to alternate interpretations of the passage if and when scientific facts show that interpretation unlikely to hold up to scrutiny.

 

[pastorkevin73]

I'm not saying my interpretation is necessarily correct. I think it's fairly obvious, at least to anyone who has a vested interest in science, that the mountain of evidence gained over the last few hundred years rules out a 6,000 year old Universe and a global flood. The mere fact alone that we see stars billions of light years away, and continue to find new ones that far aware rules out the 6,000 year old universe idea.

How old is the ToE? Wasn't it in the 1800's (I believe that it was arround 1858) that Darwin "discovered" the ToE? If that is the case wouldn't the ToE only be 149 years old? 149 Years isn't classified as a few hundred years; it wouldn't even classify as a couple hundred years.

 

[random_guy]

How old is the ToE? Wasn't it in the 1800's (I believe that it was arround 1858) that Darwin "discovered" the ToE? If that is the case wouldn't the ToE only be 149 years old? 149 Years isn't classified as a few hundred years; it wouldn't even classify as a couple hundred years.

I'm guessing Jase is exaggerating, but remember that ToE doesn't falsify young Earth, but geology does. It's been around for 200 years.

 

[Willtor]

How old is the ToE? Wasn't it in the 1800's (I believe that it was arround 1858) that Darwin "discovered" the ToE? If that is the case wouldn't the ToE only be 149 years old? 149 Years isn't classified as a few hundred years; it wouldn't even classify as a couple hundred years.

Yes, but it's been known for longer that the Earth is more than 6000 years old. Evolution doesn't enter into it.

 

[Willtor]

Oh, snap! I am really behind on the pickup, today.

 

[gluadys]

Is it not True that evolutionists have been trying to find the missing link for a very long time ? The missing link being one person with both human and ape parts ? This then would prove evolution to be True.

No, that's not what a missing link is. Evolution is never about individuals. Individuals do not evolve. It is about populations changing over time. And we do have fossils (thousands of them) from many populations that are intermediate between modern humans and the hominoid ancestors of modern humans.

Check out this page: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

If arceoligists were to dig up a skeleton dated thousands of years old, that was a mixture of cat and dog, It would be broadcasted all over the world, that a missing link in the evolutionary chain has been found, they have found the remains of an animal the was prior to any cats or dogs, that his breed of animal is what evolved into both, yet separate, species of cats and of dogs. Which would prove evolution is True.

It would be broadcast all over the world for sure, but as proving evolution false, not true. See Deamiter's post.

Are they not still searching for remains of humans with part ape in them,

Don't need to. All humans are all ape. We are a species of ape, just as chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans are. Just as all humans are all mammal, and all vertebrate, etc. Take some time to explore the nested hierarchy of life at http://tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html

Because previously, evolutionists believed all life came from one cell, and this is what they taught,

No, this was never what was indicated by the theory of evolution and I am sorry you had teachers who did not understand evolution and taught you badly. As I said earlier, evolution is a concept that does not apply to individuals. It is always about populations. All living things are made of cells. In some populations each individual consists of a single cell, in others each individual is a complex of many cells. The first group are called "Unicellular" from "uni"= "one" and the other is called "multicellular" from "multi"="many". But even unicellular populations are populations, and evolution is change in populations. It is not a matter of being descended from one particular individual.

because as soon as proof comes up that disproves them, they come up with something else, so they do not have to lose face, and admit that they are wrong, instead, just look for other avenues that promote evolution.

It is not a matter of losing face. It is a matter of staying with the truth. If what you thought was right turns out to be incorrect, there is no virtue in continuing to believe or teach what is incorrect. An honest scientist submits to the evidence and teaches what is now known to be true, or at least closer to the truth, than what s/he formerly taught.

This is one of the things I admire about science. I think it is a good rule for non-scientists to follow as well, and not only in matters of science. What is the point of clinging to a belief or teaching which has been shown to be false?