Evolution's Brick Wall

[pitabread]

No, it's man's changeable assumption/concept of Nature, which is nothing more than descent with modification within "kinds". Amen?

The way creationists think biology works isn't the way it appears to work in nature. That's the point.

It also doesnt help that creationists can't even agree on what a "kind" is. If nature really was bound by "kinds" it should be a heckuva lot easier for you guys.

 

[pitabread]

Where is the celebration, the spotlight on the 'game over' show, if all scientists think 'Tic Tac' is definite proof of macro evolution?

Common descent is already a conclusion in biology. Tiktaalik is just another piece of evidence to support it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science is validating things revealed in the UB.

Science has its own UB.

 

[inquiring mind]

Common descent is already a conclusion in biology. Tiktaalik is just another piece of evidence to support it.

When this particular part of the discussion was started, 'Tic Tac' was presented as the 'end all' to the argument.

 

[pitabread]

Do they prove evolution is a fact?

They'll explain what evolution is and how it relates to other areas of biology.

You know, you seem to forget I have listened/"learned" several times here, but once you fail miserably to convince so many times, one does tend to lose interest in anything/your "courses".

I think this is part of the problem. If you're approaching this as a challenge where people have to try to change your mind, of course it's going to be a failure. If you don't want to be convinced of something, you never will be. So what's the point?

That's why I keep emphasizing approaching this as an opportunity to understand. Forget about being 'convinced'. Just treat the theory of evolution as a body of knowledge and work to try to understand what it means and how it relates to biology as a whole. That's it.

So, no, guess I don't....give me one good reason why I should have interest in reading another bunch of claims that assume so much.

The only reason is if you have an interest in learning about biology. If you don't, then there is no point.

 

[Aman777]

The way creationists think biology works isn't the way it appears to work in nature. That's the point.

I'm a Creationist and I have no problem with how things work in Nature. The problem is the false ToE which leads most evolutionists astray. A good example is the prehistoric to modern Human concept by mindless Nature. Evolutionists swear by it but CANNOT explain where the superior knowledge comes from?

It also doesnt help that creationists can't even agree on what a "kind" is. If nature really was bound by "kinds" it should be a heckuva lot easier for you guys.

Nature is a neutral, man-made concept and does not separate things into kinds. The scientific classification system is for man's use and is the Truth scientifically and factually. God's Truth AGREES with every discovery of mankind IF you can understand it. Only the people of the last days have the increased knowledge to understand. Daniel 12:4

The TWO kinds are Their kinds (Elohim-The Trinity) and His kinds. (YHWH/Jesus) Jesus kinds are always temporary kinds, which are subject to death. Lord God/Jesus made Adam with His own Hands, on the 3rd Day. Genesis 2:7 God, The Trinity "created" Adam Eternally on the present 6th Day along with Eve. Genesis 1:27 To be created by the Trinity is to be made immortal.

 

[pitabread]

The TWO kinds are Their kinds (Elohim-The Trinity) and His kinds.

That's nice. Go talk with your fellow creationists about this then. Good luck coming to an agreement.

 

[Aman777]

That's nice. Go talk with your fellow creationists about this then. Good luck coming to an agreement.

It would be like trying to get evolutionists to agree on magical evolution since NONE of them can tell us How God's superior intelligence got inside the descendants of the common ancestor of Apes? Genesis 6:4 Can you? Of course not. It's beyond the current scientific knowledge of man.

 

[Job 33:6]

It's an odd fish, one of many strange creatures with unusual features. Where is the celebration, the spotlight on the 'game over' show, if all scientists think 'Tic Tac' is definite proof of macro evolution? You even had to produce a four year old article. If there were no doubts in the scientific world, this should have been the Super Bowl for evolutionists.

There's no celebration because quite frankly, this is old hat news. This was big news when it was first discovered back in 2004 or so.

But yes, as others have suggested, we have hundreds of transitional fossils. The debate was won long ago. If it ever was a debate at all.

And you can call tiktaalik a fish if you like, but in a literal sense, it has tetrapod traits. It is a hybrid between that which swims and that which walks on land.

 

[USincognito]

You mean the smoke screens for lack of actual evidence for a change from one kind to another.

The fact you keep referencing changing "from one kind to another" just reinforces my point.

(Hint: "Kind" still has no biological reality.)

I would be happy is just once a Creationist would finally answer this question - could you provide a hypothetical example of what you mean by "a change from one kind to another?". I've been asking for years now and they never give me an answer.

 

[USincognito]

That’s all good, but back to the discussion here, why isn’t there a lot of definite fossil evidence for a transition route from ape to man? After all the research & study that’s been done there should be something more than connecting the dots (as AV says). Government and science have based our whole education system on it.

1. Why do Creationists erroneously think that fossils are the only evidence we have for evolution?
2. How about we try two experiments involving fossils. The first one is a chronological lineup of hominid fossil skulls with a chimpanzee skull in the upper left for reference. Please tell me where you draw the line between "ape" and "human" and why you do so at that point.
3. For the second one I'd like for you to tell me if it's "ape" or "human" and why you conclude as you do.

 

[TheBear]

I would be happy is just once a Creationist would finally answer this question - could you provide a hypothetical example of what you mean by "a change from one kind to another?". I've been asking for years now and they never give me an answer.

Well, since their stunted knowledge of evolution has them thinking that evolution claims that dogs give birth to cats, and apes give birth to humans, (both gross misrepresentations of ToE), and since that has never been observed, (and it wont), then evolution is false, you'll never get an answer.

 

[pitabread]

I would be happy is just once a Creationist would finally answer this question - could you provide a hypothetical example of what you mean by "a change from one kind to another?". I've been asking for years now and they never give me an answer.

Where I have seen an answer, it's usually in the form of one extant species changing into another; like a dog changing into a cat or something. Which is nothing to do with how evolution works in the first place.

 

[USincognito]

I saw somewhere that just the “thought-to-be” or “possibly” ape to Hominid transitional fossils could be put in a shoe box and there’d still be room for the shoes. I don’t have a clue how accurate (if at all) that statement is...

That wasn't true in 1854. It's rather sad that people are still repeating permutations of the coffin/billiard table urban legend in 2018.

 

[USincognito]

Well, since their stunted knowledge of evolution has them thinking that evolution claims that dogs give birth to cats, and apes give birth to humans, (both gross misrepresentations of ToE), and since that has never been observed, (and it wont), then evolution is false, you'll never get an answer.

Where I have seen an answer, it's usually in the form of one extant species changing into another; like a dog changing into a cat or something. Which is nothing to do with how evolution works in the first place.

I would accept a response with extant taxa evolving into other extant or extinct taxa because at least then it would give me something to work with to try and correct their misunderstanding or lack of understanding.

 

[sfs]

I would accept a response with extant taxa evolving into other extant or extinct taxa because at least then it would give me something to work with to try and correct their misunderstanding or lack of understanding.

Real answer: anything could have evolved into anything else as long as nothing else evolved into humans.

 

[pitabread]

Real answer: anything could have evolved into anything else as long as nothing else evolved into humans.

This much is true. It's also why the "kind" barrier seems to get much looser the further one gets from humans.

 

[USincognito]

This much is true. It's also why the "kind" barrier seems to get much looser the further one gets from humans.

Yeah,
Human = kind
dog = kind
bird = kind
mollusk = kind
trees = kind
bacteria = kind

 

[Speedwell]

Yeah,
Human = kind
dog = kind
bird = kind
mollusk = kind
trees = kind
bacteria = kind

There have to be few enough "kinds" that they all could fit on the Ark, but not so few that humans can't have one of their own.

 

[sfs]

Yeah,
Human = kind
dog = kind
bird = kind
mollusk = kind
trees = kind
bacteria = kind

Alternative (but overlapping) explanation: "kinds" are the classifications you learned as a two-year-old. Dog, cat, sheep, pig, bird, fish, bug, tree.