Facts To Prove The Theory Of Evolution

[BCP1928]

It goes much deeper than that.

When the Bible mentions KINDS in Genesis 1, academian nuts say it can't possibly mean SPECIES, because that would mean the Ark would be overcrowded.

So when you move it up one category from SPECIES to GENUS, and say KINDS in Genesis 1 means GENUS in the lab, these nuts claim that two different GENERA can mate and have viable offspring, in violation of Genesis 1.

So now you have people like this John Woodmorappe moving up the ladder again and saying KIND means FAMILY.

And who do you think is in the background laughing his head off at all this?

A few scientists, no doubt. Most people don't care.

I'm afraid they wouldn't spend too much time with the likes of me.

They'd probably write me off as some kind [pardon the pun] of anti-science nut and be done with me.

Lucaspa, Glen Morton, Aron Ra, and Rmwilliams III spent little time putting up with me here, before they wrote me off.

They might wonder why you take man-made arbitrary classification systems so seriously.

 

[AV1611VET]

'Twas done intentionally to thwart you, y'know(?)

I may not know much science, but that doesn't mean I'm going to sit idly by and let them steamroll over the Bible without letting them know how I feel.

And telling them they're "wrong," when I have the Bible to back me up, suits me just fine.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Perhaps I need to rethink the definition of "kind" that I use ("genus").

This information I'm getting here is news to me, and I'm not familiar with it.

I didn't know birds like honeycreepers could have different genus names.

So I either need to change my definition, or assume they play loose with assigning genus names.

Question:

Can a honeycreeper in one genus mate with a honeycreeper in another genus and have viable offspring?

I have pointed this out to you several times with regard to "cats" and "flying squirrels" and all the different genera they span. But I'm glad you're beginning to recognize the flaw in your thinking regarding "kinds."

 

[BCP1928]

I may not know much science, but that doesn't mean I'm going to sit idly by and let them steamroll over the Bible without letting them know how I feel.

And telling them they're "wrong," when I have the Bible to back me up, suits me just fine.

They still won't use your "kinds" system because it's not convenient for their work. It's not clear in any case how an arbitrary man-made classification system "steamrollers" the Bible. No ontological claimed is made for them.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have pointed this out to you several times with regard to "cats" and "flying squirrels" and all the different genera they span. But I'm glad you're beginning to recognize the flaw in your thinking regarding "kinds."

You probably did, and I'm sorry if I didn't see it.

As I said, the chart that sfs posted caught my eye like a deer in a headlight.

 

[AV1611VET]

They still won't use your "kinds" system because it's not convenient for their work.

I understand why they won't now.

If KIND in the Bible is the same as GENUS, then according to the Bible, different genera cannot mate and have viable offspring.

But if ornithologists want to play loose with honeycreepers and assign them all sorts of different GENERA for convenience sake, then I'm sure they won't agree with me.

In short, the Bible won't let them legitimately do it, so they take the BIBLE CAN TAKE A HIKE stance.

It's not clear in any case how an arbitrary man-made classification system "steamrollers" the Bible.

See my comment above.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread had a clean up. There were lots of violations.

Remember to address content and not go after the member. IF the member is inappropriate, report him.

Also, remember this from the Statement of Purpose:
​

Do not flame other views. Christianity cannot be called a myth, and science cannot be called a religion or made up. Threads started, or responses made, to simply disparage science will be considered off topic to the forum.​

​

Violations of this would include referring to scientific theories as lies of the Devil or disparaging a view based on the Bible. ​

​

​

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I understand why they won't now.

If KIND in the Bible is the same as GENUS, then according to the Bible, different genera cannot mate and have viable offspring.

But if ornithologists want to play loose with honeycreepers and assign them all sorts of different GENERA for convenience sake, then I'm sure they won't agree with me.

In short, the Bible won't let them legitimately do it, so they take the BIBLE CAN TAKE A HIKE stance.

If God didn't want ornithologists creating extra labels to classify birds, and by extension biologists with all the other animals in the world, then maybe He should have written something down to that effect, don't you think?

 

[Astrid]

They still won't use your "kinds" system because it's not convenient for their work. It's not clear in any case how an arbitrary man-made classification system "steamrollers" the Bible. No ontological claimed is made for them.

If religious beliefs are such an empty
silly thing as could be rolled over
by biologists' classifications, it would be well
to be done with thet.

And, side note, we in China are no more concerned
with middle eastern religious traditions about
biology than we are about the origin myyhs of
Yananamo Indians.

If among them there are eccentric personalized versions
of traditional tales,, that could be of passing interest to
some bored anthropologist.

Noted of course that the Yananamo are highly
skilled biologists in their own right with knowledge
of their biosphere that's of great value and interest to
science.

I am ignorant of any value any religious belief has in
science. Perhaps someone could educate me on
that.

If tho as much appears the case, religion has no
DATA (Yananamo do,. in great abundance)
their religious opinions they have no say in a
physical science forum.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I understand why they won't now.

If KIND in the Bible is the same as GENUS, then according to the Bible, different genera cannot mate and have viable offspring.

But if ornithologists want to play loose with honeycreepers and assign them all sorts of different GENERA for convenience sake, then I'm sure they won't agree with me.

In short, the Bible won't let them legitimately do it, so they take the BIBLE CAN TAKE A HIKE stance.



See my comment above.

I think you're missing a third stance that can be chosen: That both Science AND the Bible can be taken with a grain of salt, stance.

That's the one I stand in. It's a more Realist and Existential one.

 

[Astrid]

I think you're missing a third stance that can be chosen: That both Science AND the Bible can be taken with a grain of salt, stance.

That's the one I stand in. It's a more Realist and Existential one.

No claim of proven Truth is ever made in
science, still less of infallibility.
But every position taken is variously backed by
observation, experiment, math.

Faith based claims of eternal Truth based on an individual's (Often self styled as infallible) chosen reading
of the bible are hardly equivalent re how many
sacks of salt.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think you're missing a third stance that can be chosen: That both Science AND the Bible can be taken with a grain of salt, stance.

People who take the Bible with a grain of salt run the risk of ending up in Hell.

People who take science with a grain of salt don't run that risk.

I have a feeling artists like Mozart and Rembrandt didn't really care for science that much.

As far as me personally, I have a deeper respect for [true] science; giving God the credit for its source.

And I believe God has given me a set of standards that bring the two together in harmony, without contradicting the Bible.

So I don't believe your "third stance" applies to me.

 

[AV1611VET]

No claim of proven Truth is ever made in science, still less of infallibility.

Why would they?

But every position taken is variously backed by observation, experiment, math.

With a few steps in between.

Faith based claims of eternal Truth based on an individual's (Often self styled as infallible) chosen reading of the bible are hardly equivalent ...

Why would they be equivalent?

One is a set of eternal truths; the other is a set of often-changing convincements.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

People who take the Bible with a grain of salt run the risk of ending up in Hell.

So do people who claim that they take the Bible "literally." So, you're not really getting any leverage here over or upon me with that comment.

Notice, too, I haven't once, anywhere on this entire forum, denounced Fundamentalist Christians as being somehow outside of God's grace and, therefore, at risk of not attaining salvation in Christ.

People who take science with a grain of salt don't run that risk.

I beg to differ.

I have a feeling artists like Mozart and Rembrandt didn't really care for science that much.

Oh, please. Spare me your hubris.

As far as me personally, I have a deeper respect for [true] science; giving God the credit for its source.

"True" science. What even is that?

And I believe God has given me a set of standards that bring the two together in harmony, without contradicting the Bible.

Of course you do.

So I don't believe your "third stance" applies to me.

And I don't believe that much of what you have to say applies to me, either.

 

[Astrophile]

And many innocent people have served lengthy prison sentences.

The OP asked for facts. If you've got a mountain full, just give me one.

Genetics. Comparative anatomy. Fossils. Biogeography.

How much evidence, and of what type, would be enough to convince you that living things have evolved?

 

[Chesterton]

For at least the 10,000th time:

There's no proof in science.

There's no proof, yet you asked for a disproof. A little confusing, don't you think? Reminds me of this:

 

[BCP1928]

There's no proof, yet you asked for a disproof. A little confusing, don't you think? Reminds me of this:

Not when you understand the nature of inductive logic. But it doesn't matter. All you have to do is produce empirical evidence which is not
consistent with the theory of evolution.

 

[Chesterton]

Not when you understand the nature of inductive logic.

I understand both inductive and deductive. Both are used in science.

 

[BCP1928]

I understand both inductive and deductive. Both are used in science.

True. But in science, the conclusions of deductive logic have to be confirmed by empirical evidence.

 

[Chesterton]

Right -- that's why I said that science usually has higher standards than courts.

These are honeycreepers:
View attachment 344106
They are a diverse set of birds: different colors, different sizes, different diets with beaks suited to each. They're all found in Hawaii, and it is a fact that, despite their diversity, each one is more similar genetically to other honeycreepers than it is to any other bird in the world. Evolution explains that fact. What's your explanation?

My explanation is what they call micro-evolution. What's most notable about your chart of birds is that they are all birds. There are no whales or humans there. I have blue eyes and straight hair. My biological brother had brown eyes and curly hair, and was about an inch taller than me. These are not facts from which to originate a science fiction as Darwin did.