Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[TLK Valentine]

Would you care to help loudmouth answer the question presented in post 799?

I'm not a microbiologist, so I don't know.

But just because I don't know something doesn't mean it's not true. We call that "humility."

The more you know...

 

[TLK Valentine]

Where?

He's trying to be clever... could we be dealing with a Hovindite?

 

[-57]

Where?

You know Loudmouth....YOU called me out for a debate....and i asked you a question....now you refuse to debate and answer the question.

NEXT

 

[-57]

They're not going to answer the question.

I know. They can't. All they do is spout off evo-babble.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That is an opinion, not evidence. Do you even understand the difference between evidence and opinion?

Do you? Since no laboratory experiment has produced life from non-life. And every experiment condition is incompatible with every other one. It is simply OPINION that life started from non-life and then developed complexity afterwards.

Nor has any experiment ever produced anything new. E coli after billions of generations and billions of mutations remained E coli.

Anything else is just opinion.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

In exactly the same that that since all mammals are so closely related, it stands to reason they are the same kind.

All life appears closely related because all life was made from the exact some protons, neutrons and electrons that make up dust. And so the appearance of relatedness is to be expected in creation.

So you believe whales and humans are the same Kind????

 

[Loudmouth]

You know Loudmouth....YOU called me out for a debate....and i asked you a question....now you refuse to debate and answer the question.

I am still calling you out for a debate where we will discuss evidence. Now you refuse to present evidence. If I don't have an answer to a question, then I don't have an answer. I am not going to just invent one.

Do you understand what it means to make a positive claim and then present positive evidence to support that claim? It means you need to make a case for creationism, not simply point out our lack of knowledge for specific evolutionary pathways. Not evolution =/= Creationism. Even if evolution is false you still need to produce positive evidence for creationism.

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you?

Yes.

Since no laboratory experiment has produced life from non-life. And every experiment condition is incompatible with every other one. It is simply OPINION that life started from non-life and then developed complexity afterwards.

I freely admit that we don't know how life started. Your point?

Nor has any experiment ever produced anything new. E coli after billions of generations and billions of mutations remained E coli.

That is an opinion. You need to back this claim with evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

All life appears closely related because all life was made from the exact some protons, neutrons and electrons that make up dust.

Why would being made from the same protons, neutrons, and electrons force life to fall into a nested hierarchy? You have never explained this. Cars, planes, and trains are made up out of the same subatomic particles, yet they don't fall into a nested hierarchy. How do you explain that?

And so the appearance of relatedness is to be expected in creation.

There is absolutely no reason why separately created organisms would fall into a nested hierarchy.

So you believe whales and humans are the same Kind????

They are both in the mammal kind.

 

[Loudmouth]

I know. They can't. All they do is spout off evo-babble.

Do you want to discuss evidence or not?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Why would being made from the same protons, neutrons, and electrons force life to fall into a nested hierarchy? You have never explained this. Cars, planes, and trains are made up out of the same subatomic particles, yet they don't fall into a nested hierarchy. How do you explain that?



There is absolutely no reason why separately created organisms would fall into a nested hierarchy.



They are both in the mammal kind.

Mammals are not a Kind. It is your incorrect definition of this strawman that you make.

A Kind is that which can interbreed - or that we know once interbred because we know the lineage thereof. It's like the correct definition of species which you ignore.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Species

"An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring. Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same."


Like Darwin's Finches that you refuse to call the same Kind - even if they interbreed right in front of your face.

And still refuse to answer my question. Why are not American Indians considered a separate species since they were reproductively isolated from the rest of humanity for 10's of thousands of years?

You wont answer because every answer you give will destroy your claims with Darwin's Finches and you know this.

All cars can be placed in a false hierarchy just as mammals. They all have wheels. They all have engines. They all have frames. They all have drive shafts. Your own argument defeats you.

Cars, trains and planes all have wheels, all have engines, all carry passengers or freight, all are methods of transportation - just like all mammals have internal skeletons, are warm-blooded, etc. From the first one invented to the last we can place them in a hierarchy of evolution - because that hierarchy is based upon false premises.

 

[Loudmouth]

Mammals are not a Kind. It is your incorrect definition of this strawman that you make.

How is it incorrect?

A Kind is that which can interbreed - or that we know once interbred because we know the lineage thereof.

Why can't species share a common ancestor and not be able to interbreed?

It's like the correct definition of species which you ignore.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Species

"An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring. Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same."

I thought we agreed that humans and chimps were separate species. Is that not the case?

Like Darwin's Finches that you refuse to call the same Kind - even if they interbreed right in front of your face.

If there is free interbreeding, then why do the groups of finches look different from each other?

And still refuse to answer my question. Why are not American Indians considered a separate species since they were reproductively isolated from the rest of humanity for 10's of thousands of years?

When other populations were reintroduced there was free interbreeding between the groups.

Is there free interbreeding between humans and chimps?

You wont answer because every answer you give will destroy your claims with Darwin's Finches and you know this.

Do you really think that the entire theory of evolution hinges on those finches? Really?

All cars can be placed in a false hierarchy just as mammals. They all have wheels. They all have engines. They all hace frames. They all have drive shafts.

Those are still all in one group. You need to split them into subgroups based on shared and unshared features. You also need to show that the hierarchy is objective.

Cars, trains and planes all have wheels, all have engines, all carry passengers or freight, all are methods of transportation - just like all mammals have internal skeletons, are warm-blooded, etc.

Still need to split them into groups.

 

[-57]

All life appears closely related because all life was made from the exact some protons, neutrons and electrons that make up dust. And so the appearance of relatedness is to be expected in creation.

So you believe whales and humans are the same Kind????

How true. the commonness of life points out a common creator.

 

[Loudmouth]

How true. the commonness of life points out a common creator.

A common creator would not produce a nested hierarchy like we see with life.

 

[-57]

I am still calling you out for a debate where we will discuss evidence. Now you refuse to present evidence. If I don't have an answer to a question, then I don't have an answer. I am not going to just invent one.

Do you understand what it means to make a positive claim and then present positive evidence to support that claim? It means you need to make a case for creationism, not simply point out our lack of knowledge for specific evolutionary pathways. Not evolution =/= Creationism. Even if evolution is false you still need to produce positive evidence for creationism.

OK, prove evolutionism happened. Balls in your court.

 

[-57]

A common creator would not produce a nested hierarchy like we see with life.

In your opinion.

 

[-57]

Do you want to discuss evidence or not?

Post your evidencee evolutionism happened.

 

[Loudmouth]

OK, prove evolutionism happened. Balls in your court.

I just started a new thread that has that proof.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/erv-evidence-1-species-distrubution.7927435/

 

[Loudmouth]

In your opinion.

Why would a common creator create life so that it falls into a nested hierarchy?

 

[-57]

Why would a common creator create life so that it falls into a nested hierarchy?

Why not? Perhaps you should ask the platypus.