What's a species for that matter? I understand a "kind" to be a classification of animal or creature that is able to mate and have fertile offspring. At least, that's the explanation I have heard.
Upvote
0
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.
What's a species for that matter? I understand a "kind" to be a classification of animal or creature that is able to mate and have fertile offspring. At least, that's the explanation I have heard.I understand what the definition is, but what I'm more concerned with is
What's a kind?
What's a species for that matter?
I understand a "kind" to be a classification of animal or creature that is able to mate and have fertile offspring. At least, that's the explanation I have heard.
OK, so we hear a lot on this forum that masses of evidence overwhelmingly confirms evolution to the extent that for all intents and purposes it can be regarded as fact. In that case, can someone please present a non-scientist like myself with perhaps half a dozen pieces of evidence that if presented in a court of law, would be sufficient to convince a jury that evolution were true beyond all reasonable doubt. At least one of these should directly relate to the claim that one type of creature (e.g., a reptile) can turn into a bird, with some examples of actual creatures where this has happened or is happening.
Let’s flip the coin now. Can someone also present a similar amount of ideas presented by creation scientists that can be shown to be false, again using the above court room scenario.
Finally, could someone answer the question about how the first life could have got started all on its own without any divine intervention. In particular, where all the information came from to start life and build the first self-reproducing cell and how the problem of chirality could have been overcome in such a process.
Since you would be presenting these ideas to non-scientists, could you for each piece of evidence you present, indicate what the specialism of any scientist working in that field would need to have.
Meaning the evidence points to a conclusion for which there is no other logical alternative.
Reasonable alternative may be a term that sits better with some.
How has the theory of evolution been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? I'm a lay person on the jury - convince me.It should be noted that the TOE has already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, according to the standard accepted definition. Special creation by a deity, YEC, gap theology, embedded age, etc are not reasonable or logical alternatives. Based on the current evidence there is not an alternative explanation for the biodiversity of life we see today that is more reasonable or logical than the TOE.
Entertaining the idea that a deity created the earth in the recent past and specially created all the life we see today while at the same time making everything look like it occurred naturally is not reasonable. It is the criminal law equivalent of a defense counsel asserting that aliens came down, killed a man's wife and then made the evidence appear that the husband did it. That is not reasonable nor logical.
This is based on the standard requirement in the western justice system. For the purposes of this discussion, I have adapted it to try to visualise an imaginary trial in which it were trying to be shown that evolution were true, rather than trying to determine whether a crime had been committed.
Generally the scientists or expert witnesses trying to show that evolution were true would bear the burden of proof and would be required to prove their version of events to this standard. This means that the proposition being presented to the judge/jury must be proven to the extent that there could be no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a "reasonable person" that the theory were an established fact. There could still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a reasonable person's belief regarding whether or not were theory is true.
There is much talk of this on creationist websites, e.g., http://creation.com/search?q=is+nested+heirarchy+evidence+for+evolution and their accounts sound just as plausible to the lay person.The dotted lines are shared features and shared DNA. They are still here. The "orchard of life" that you describe would not produce the nested hierarchy that we see when we objectively organize life by shared and derived traits.
"The nested hierarchical organization of species contrasts sharply with other possible biological patterns, such as the continuum of "the great chain of being" and the continuums predicted by Lamarck's theory of organic progression (Darwin 1872, pp. 552-553; Futuyma 1998, pp. 88-92). Mere similarity between organisms is not enough to support macroevolution; the nested classification pattern produced by a branching evolutionary process, such as common descent, is much more specific than simple similarity. Real world examples that cannot be objectively classified in nested hierarchies are the elementary particles (which are described by quantum chromodynamics), the elements (whose organization is described by quantum mechanics and illustrated by the periodic table), the planets in our Solar System, books in a library, or specially designed objects like buildings, furniture, cars, etc."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy
I'm trying to be. As this is a forum, anyone who has not made their mind up about the evolution/creation controversy is of course welcome to add their comments.But are you an impartial jury member?
Your chosen user name is likely to raise questions about your impartiality. Kind of like adopting the name "Not Guilty" during jury selection.I'm trying to be. As this is a forum, anyone who has not made their mind up about the evolution/creation controversy is of course welcome to add their comments.
There is much talk of this on creationist websites, e.g., http://creation.com/search?q=is+nested+heirarchy+evidence+for+evolution and their accounts sound just as plausible to the lay person.
But there are other views, e.g: http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/ quoted below:-There's the Scopes trial and the Dover trial, both of which were about evolution versus creationism.
Evolution won every time because it has the vast majority of scientific evidence behind it, whereas creationism has a bunch of charlatan's lies and slander against real science, reality, and Biblical interpretation.
To quote this article:
"In the nation's first case to test the legal merits of intelligent design, the judge, John E. Jones III, issued a broad, stinging rebuke to its advocates and provided strong support for scientists who have fought to bar intelligent design from the science curriculum. Judge Jones also excoriated members of the Dover, Pa., school board, who he said lied to cover up their religious motives, made a decision of "breathtaking inanity" and "dragged" their community into "this legal maelstrom with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."
He's a conservative judge appointed by Bush, by the way -- no liberal agenda here.
Maybe, but I'm trying to be like one member wrote, the scientist who may believe in God outside his work, but in the lab, he totally rejects having any part in what he is studying (perhaps even as one might say, "playing the Devil's advocate"). In any case, I don't believe that macro evolution is possible, so I'm sort of regarding creation science as the innocent party until proven guilty by the [apparent] overwhelming evidence of evolution. Where is it - I haven't seen anything yet that doesn't have an equally-plausible explanation or serious refutation in the creationist camp?Your chosen user name is likely to raise questions about your impartiality. Kind of like adopting the name "Not Guilty" during jury selection.
What's a species for that matter? I understand a "kind" to be a classification of animal or creature that is able to mate and have fertile offspring. At least, that's the explanation I have heard.
Maybe, but I'm trying to be like one member wrote, the scientist who may believe in God outside his work, but in the lab, he totally rejects having any part in what he is studying (perhaps even as one might say, "playing the Devil's advocate"). In any case, I don't believe that macro evolution is possible, so I'm sort of regarding creation science as the innocent party until proven guilty by the [apparent] overwhelming evidence of evolution. Where is it - I haven't seen anything yet that doesn't have an equally-plausible explanation or serious refutation in the creationist camp?
I'm trying to be. As this is a forum, anyone who has not made their mind up about the evolution/creation controversy is of course welcome to add their comments.
Some other wonderful things from World Net Daily:But there are other views, e.g: http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/ quoted below:-
A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate’s rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.
“Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,” the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.
The court decided the inmate’s First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.
Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, called the court’s ruling “a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence.”
“Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion,” said Fahling.
The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described “secular humanism” as a religion.
Fahling said today’s ruling was “further evidence of the incoherence of Establishment Clause jurisprudence.”
“It is difficult not to be somewhat jaundiced about our courts when they take clauses especially designed to protect religion from the state and turn them on their head by giving protective cover to a belief system, that, by every known definition other than the courts’ is not a religion, while simultaneously declaring public expressions of true religious faith to be prohibited,” Fahling said.
There is much talk of this on creationist websites, e.g., http://creation.com/search?q=is+nested+heirarchy+evidence+for+evolution and their accounts sound just as plausible to the lay person.
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?