Evolution's Brick Wall

[Kenny'sID]

It's been posted and ignored on this forum more then enough times, including in this very thread.

I both don't have the time and energy to dig it up again.
If you really want to know, do a search for "Tiktaalik".



The find was predicted in both locality and age (devonian rock) and feature set (fish / tetrapod hybrid). It's pretty straight forward.

By all means, continue sticking your head in the sand.

thanks just the same.

 

[pitabread]

Sure, whatever you say.

Then you agree with me? Or do you still disagree?

You're not being particularly easy to converse with right now...

 

[pitabread]

Read the linked article.

I did. Are you willing to have a discussion about it? Because it has a number of issues and doesn't really clarify anything.

I just want to make sure you're willing to discuss it before I write out a longer reply.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Then you agree with me? Or do you still disagree?

You're not being particularly easy to converse with right now...

That's because you're badgering me on something you are clear I'm done with.

I suppose you'll be ok once you "think" you have put me to shame..some people need that kind of thing...me? again, whatever you say.

 

[inquiring mind]

I did. Are you willing to have a discussion about it? Because it has a number of issues and doesn't really clarify anything.

I just want to make sure you're willing to discuss it before I write out a longer reply.

Why do you have to write a long reply? Just state your disagreements. I think everyone can figure it out.

 

[inquiring mind]

Just be careful with those elastic definitions.

 

[pitabread]

I suppose you'll be ok once you "think" you have put me to shame..some people need that kind of thing...

Is that what you think disagreements are about? Shaming you?

Why do you think that?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Is that what you think disagreements are about? Shaming you?

In general..of course not...nice twist.

 

[pitabread]

In general..of course not...nice twist.

Well why did you feel that way about my post? I mean, all I was doing as clarifying why I don't think dictionaries are a good source for technical definitions in a particular field.

What does that have to do with shaming you?

 

[inquiring mind]

Well why did you feel that way about my post? I mean, all I was doing as clarifying why I don't think dictionaries are a good source for technical definitions in a particular field.

What does that have to do with shaming you?

I've already put my dictionaries on ebay.

 

[Jimmy D]

Settle down.

Not pretending anything, why would I do that? I simply want a single detailed definition for the record before I move on so there is no confusion. Is that going to be a problem?

My guess is that you have been provided with a detailed definition at least 20 or 30 times on these forums. Would you like me to find them for you.

I appreciate that you’re only making use of your favourite and often repeated tactic of obfuscation, as you have nothing useful to contribute in terms of scientific debate, but c’mon, it’s getting embarrassing.

 

[inquiring mind]

My guess is that you have been provided with a detailed definition at least 20 or 30 times on these forums. Would you like me to find them for you.

I appreciate that you’re only trolling, as you have nothing useful to contribute in terms of scientific debate, but c’mon, it’s getting embarrassing.

Please Jimmy D, you're not supposed to use the "t" word anymore.

 

[Jimmy D]

Which was a misinterpretation of my position, which I clarified in my subsequent reply which you claimed you didn't read.

Is this how you normally have conversations?

Lol, are you new here or something?

 

[Jimmy D]

Please Jimmy D, you're not supposed to use the "t" word anymore.

Really? If so I’ll edit my post accordingly.

 

[inquiring mind]

Really? If so I’ll edit my post accordingly.

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/guidelines-for-all-discussion-and-debate-forums.7797816/

 

[Colter]

Omnipotence without omniscience?

"The Bible says it, that settles it".....even if its wrong......because we have invested far too much of our pride in it to turn back now!

 

[Jimmy D]

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/guidelines-for-all-discussion-and-debate-forums.7797816/

Thanks.

Consider it edited.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm always leery when a comment ends with 'so logic follows.'

If A = B and B = C, does it not logically follow that A = C?

As I was discussing earlier in the thread, ‘species’ was always considered a Biblical/Created Kind

Well, most definatly not always. Only during those days when christianity ruled town and going against that would be deemed "heresy".

until the biological classification system redefined the term so as to represent a broken-up version

So, pretty much until society, and science in particular, broke free from that shackles of religious doctrine and dogma.

(helping to promote evolution, or change over time)

Or.... making more sense in a reality where evolution actually occurs.

, even though the different versions were still the same kind.

So you keep saying. Yet, you haven't produced a single definition of "kind" that would allow anyone to independently take 2 random organism and determine if they are the same "kind". Not without ending up with contradictory claims anyway....

In fact, I'ld dare say that the way it is determined if any 2 creatures are the same "kind", is whatever suits the biblical narrative best.

Again, when it comes to evolution, they’re as elastic as a rubber band...

So you keep claiming. You have yet to provide any kind of evidence of this.

the devil’s workshop against God’s Word.

There you go. Your real reason for objecting to the science of evolution: religious belief.

I read a great article with info about ‘changing the meaning of species’ a few days ago. Here’s you some free education, not that you’ll read it:

https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/what-are-kinds-in-genesis/

This, coming from the site that has a statement of faith literally saying that "the bible is the truth and nothing but the truth and any evidence that goes against it is by definition incorrect".

Try coming up with sources that actually understand the concept of intellectual honesty.


EDIT: also, you really didn't have anything else to say about ring species? So in the conceptual example in the drawing, are the blues and reds, the same "kind"?

 

[DogmaHunter]

46AND2 said: ↑

A theory is an EXPLANATION for a set of related hypotheses and observations. Again, it is an explanation, not a proposition.

Do you all agree that is the scientific definition of "theory"?

Yes. A theory is an explanation of a set of facts, observations, phenomena,... within a specific well defined scope.

I'll add that it's a testable explanation.

 

[DogmaHunter]

thanks just the same.

In fact, I'm quite positive that no more then a week, 2 at most, there was a multi-page discussion about this very subject (Tiktaalik being found by prediction) and I think you were a part of it.