Evidence for Creation / against Evolution

[LittleNipper]

What's amazing is that you can claim this without being able to provide a working definition of "kind."

Can you provide a working definition of specie? A kind is something that is. Something that is did not originate from something that is not. Adam and Eve were HUMAN KIND. They were created as such. Their origin is the starting point of human life. They did not develope from a previous kind.

 

[LittleNipper]

Fixed this part.

Your tampering with the post of another is what is shallow....

 

[TeddyKGB]

Can you provide a working definition of specie?

Typological, morphological, biological, phylogenetic, or other?

A kind is something that is. Something that is did not originate from something that is not.

What.

Adam and Eve were HUMAN KIND. They were created as such. Their origin is the starting point of human life. They did not develope from a previous kind.

Brilliant.

 

[z3ro]

Can you provide a working definition of specie?

An exact definition is quite hard, but a working one is actually easy. A species is a biologically simillar group of animals that generally cannot breed with other species.

Now of course this definition is not exact, and does not cover all animals, but it is certainly workable, allowing science and biology to progress. Now, how about that working definition of kinds?

 

[llDayo]

The Holy Spirit reveals the meaning of the Bible to me because I 'm a saved and indwelled by the Holy Spirit. I follow GOD's WORD and I do not follow people. The Bible is GOD manuel and love letter to me.

The Bible was written by men, whether it was God influenced or not. So yes, you DO follow people. Say hello to Manuel and his love letter for me, would you?

 

[llDayo]

Your tampering with the post of another is what is shallow....

Tampering and correcting are two totally different things.

 

[Hydra009]

Can you provide a working definition of specie?

[pet peeve] Specie refers to coins.

Species is either a singular and plural noun, depending on the context, like deer. (i.e. "a species, many species") [/pet peeve]

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

An exact definition is quite hard, but a working one is actually easy. A species is a biologically simillar group of animals that generally cannot breed with other species.

Now of course this definition is not exact, and does not cover all animals, but it is certainly workable, allowing science and biology to progress. Now, how about that working definition of kinds?

The YEC definition of kinds is of course inexact but has two key crtitera. It must be:

1. Broad enough so that the ark is not too crowded.

2. Narrow enough that humans can't possibly be the same "kind" as any other animal.

The fact that these two criteria are mutually exclusive bothers YEC not at all. They are used to having their explanation of overvation A directly contradict their explanation of observaton B so this is just another example of something they deal without care or thought.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[LittleNipper]

Typological, morphological, biological, phylogenetic, or other?

Sounds like it is already far too complicated for anyone to prove that the authorities on the subject are not full of themselves.....

 

[LittleNipper]

The YEC definition of kinds is of course inexact but has two key crtitera. It must be:

1. Broad enough so that the ark is not too crowded.

2. Narrow enough that humans can't possibly be the same "kind" as any other animal.

The fact that these two criteria are mutually exclusive bothers YEC not at all. They are used to having their explanation of overvation A directly contradict their explanation of observaton B so this is just another example of something they deal without care or thought.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

Well, Kinds are not "breeds" and Kinds are not "race." This is where evolutionists begin to take exception. They see races or breeds as the divergence of a specie The Creationist would see race & breed as the specialization of a Kind founded in unique/variety.

 

[Hydra009]

Sounds like it is already far too complicated for anyone to prove that the authorities on the subject are not full of themselves.....

Sooo...you don't understand the terms, therefore the scientists are "full of themselves"?

Is there any creationist argument that doesn't depend on ignorance?

Well, Kinds are not "breeds" and Kinds are not "race."

Care to inform us about what it is, instead of what it isn't?

 

[LittleNipper]

The Bible was written by men, whether it was God influenced or not. So yes, you DO follow people. Say hello to Manuel and his love letter for me, would you?

Romans 19:4

For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning , that through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

Titus 1:2

For hope of eternal life, which GOD, that cannot lie, promised before the world began.

II Timothy 1:9

Who hath saved us, and called with a holy calling , not according to our works, but according to HIS purpose and grace, which was given us in CHRIST JESUS before the world began.

 

[z3ro]

An exact definition is quite hard, but a working one is actually easy. A species is a biologically simillar group of animals that generally cannot breed with other species.

Now of course this definition is not exact, and does not cover all animals, but it is certainly workable, allowing science and biology to progress. Now, how about that working definition of kinds?

No comment? I met your challenge, would you care to meet mine?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Well, Kinds are not "breeds" and Kinds are not "race." This is where evolutionists begin to take exception. They see races or breeds as the divergence of a specie The Creationist would see race & breed as the specialization of a Kind founded in unique/variety.

So much for what they are not. Now what are they?

 

[Asimov]

So much for what they are not. Now what are they?

Creationists are as bad at defining what a kind is at defining what a spirit is.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

The Holy Spirit reveals the meaning of the Bible to me because I 'm a saved and indwelled by the Holy Spirit. I follow GOD's WORD and I do not follow people. The Bible is GOD manuel and love letter to me.

I'm sure this is just going to get me more bible quotes, but:
No, you don't.

You just want it to be, you want to actually, really believe all these things, like you just know there is a computer in front of you - but you don't.

 

[Loudmouth]

A kind is something that is.

[Yoda]Like the Force it is. Hmmm?[/Yoda]

Something that is did not originate from something that is not.

Really? Any more nuggets of wisdom?

Adam and Eve were HUMAN KIND.

Adam and Eve are characters in Jewish Folklore.

They were created as such.

Since you were born from parents, does this make you something other than human kind?

Their origin is the starting point of human life.

Last I checked, Adam and Eve were still characters in a story. I am pretty sure I am real.

They did not develope from a previous kind.

And yet we find fossils that have both modern human characteristics and more chimp like characteristics, exactly what you would expect if humans did evolve from a common ancestor with chimps.

 

[rambot]

Oh man I really hope this webpage get's through...
YAAARRRG!....it doesn't work...
try
darwinismrefuted.com

I haven't been here long enough to put up links yet....oh well. I hope you don't mind the legwork.... It's worth it....really..not like that "answers in genesis" garbage.

I have noticed a lot of straight up evolutionists get really condescending and derisive when discussing problems with evolution. This usually happens on internet forums (specifically the LAST forum I was a part of) where hacks and yokels bring up empty critiques of evolution devoid of the science (or at LEAST the reputation) that is needed to begin a really good indepth conversation. And then, strangely enough, many of the evolutionists end up sounding hack and yokel like straight back at them.


If you're a hard core evolutionist, take the time to read the link I just sent and read what some scientists have to say about the problems with evolution (and there ARE many).

I am NOt a creationist...nor a strict evolutionist.... if that's important.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

http://darwinismrefuted.com

introducing: Turkey's Islamic Henry Morris, Harun Yahya

there is no science there.

As a matter of fact, however, scientific findings do not support the theory of evolution. Findings from the last two decades in particular openly contradict the basic assumptions of this theory. Many branches of science, such as paleontology, biochemistry, population genetics, comparative anatomy and biophysics, indicate that natural processes and coincidental effects cannot explain life, as the theory of evolution proposes.
...
Evolutionary theory ignores this fundamental law of physics. The mechanism offered by evolution totally contradicts the second law. The theory of evolution says that disordered, dispersed, and lifeless atoms and molecules spontaneously came together over time, in a particular order, to form extremely complex molecules such as proteins, DNA, and RNA, whereupon millions of different living species with even more complex structures gradually emerged. According to the theory of evolution, this supposed process-which yields a more planned, more ordered, more complex and more organized structure at each stage-was formed all by itself under natural conditions. The law of entropy makes it clear that this so-called natural process utterly contradicts the laws of physics.
...
The information we have considered throughout this book has shown us that the theory of evolution has no scientific basis, and that, on the contrary, evolutionist claims conflict with scientific facts. In other words, the force that keeps evolution alive is not science. Evolution may be maintained by some "scientists," but behind it there is another influence at work.

This other influence is materialist philosophy. The theory of evolution is simply materialist philosophy applied to nature, and those who support that philosophy do so despite the scientific evidence.

This relationship between materialism and the theory of evolution is accepted by "authorities" on these concepts. For example, the discovery of Darwin was described by Leon Trotsky as "the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter."

 

[Psudopod]

The mechanism offered by evolution totally contradicts the second law.

Well, there's a major flaw right there. Evolution does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics. Anymore than the deveopement of a gamete to a baby does.

Also, I've noticed a belief among creationists that the law is the ultimate form of scientific knowlege. Theory < Law etc.

Laws are mathmatical statements and most of the time the hold over a specific set of circumstances and fail outside them.

Hookes law, Newtons laws of motion, the ideal Gas laws, all give incorrect answers when used outsdie of their limits. Hence the problems with the orbit of Mercury.