-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...
- Thread starter Neogaia777
- Start date
- Status
Hieronymus
Well-Known Member
- Jan 12, 2016
- 8,428
- 3,005
- 54
- Country
- Netherlands
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
We want to know what kinds are in the real world, and we want to see the criteria that creationists are using to interpret the evidence.
Or is this a situation where creationists aren't interpreting the evidence?
Upvote
0
Sister_in_Christ
Active Member
Upvote
0
Sister_in_Christ
Active Member
You want answers? Read the article. You can't use my not being God and not knowing everything as your excuse for not evaluating material presented.
Upvote
0
I want a discussion.
I am not asking you to be God. I am asking you how creationists interpret the evidence to arrive at the conclusion that there are unrelated kinds.
Upvote
0
Do you understand the material? Do you have a reason why you think it makes sense or doesn't make sense? Bare links don't tell us your argument - they only show that you can use the cut and paste function.
As far as I can tell, "baraminology" and 'kinds' doesn't make any sense - it's simply a word game to stretch "we don't know" into paragraphs. And your inability to explain any logic to either supports that, at least so far.
in Christ-
Papias
Upvote
0
Sister_in_Christ
Active Member
Except I've already explained this concept multiple times in this thread. Then, I'm asked for citations, which I post. Which are then refuted by the oh-so-intelligent excuse of "nuh-uh".
And then we end up back here. Where I'm asked to defend creation without the use of any scientific article that supports creation because it's *biased*, while you continually cite sources that are pro-evolution to make your points. Because it's not *biased* if it's evolution?
So then I do explain the theory, we go through the "you don't even have a hypothesis!" To which I respond with a hypothesis. To which you respond by denying that I have any foundation because I can't "prove" what happened at creation. Never mind you have no proof for primordial soup transforming into a grasshopper. Because you don't need proof. Only creationists need proof.
Once we all get angry discussing those double standards, you claim either that you're in the majority, or some other arbitrary statistic about the number of evolutionary scientists which has no bearing on actual truth.
So then you make a statement about how ridiculous God is. You make countless insults against Christianity as a whole, and you ridicule anyone who does take their faith seriously.
Then, someone else inevitably joins in the discussion with a point about how ridiculous evolution is, or with evidence of creation, and we're back to "you don't even have a testable hypothesis!".
So, somewhere in the previous pages of this thread, we've already had this fight. And we've already played on this merry-go-round, and I've already provided all that you've asked.
That is why I'm posting bare links. While I do have a working knowledge of everything I've posted, and can provide article after article after article, I also have a life. I can't afford to constantly debate with people who refuse to even respect the idea of God.
So, you can argue and bicker and harass each other all you like. All the info you need to refute evolution is easy to find with google. I truly hope you practice what you preach and open your mind even a little. That said, I'm done. Argue amongst yourselves.
Upvote
0
From the CF helpful hints for debating:
A citation should strive to represent either the disinterested words/analysis of an expert or show facts as they really are.
When a citation is biased, it fails to give a fair and accurate representation of facts, thereby leading to falsification and thus weakening an argument, as a biased source fails to support an argument and also casts a bad light upon the person utilizing a biased source.
Additionally, citations cannot be used alone.
While a citation may present an argument, it is not good use of a citation to simply copy paste large sections into your browser. Citations should ideally only be citing facts, and facts without analysis are useless. Include either an analysis that supports your argument or cite a small section that has a clear, well-defined fact or argument that supports your argument.
When a citation is biased, it fails to give a fair and accurate representation of facts, thereby leading to falsification and thus weakening an argument, as a biased source fails to support an argument and also casts a bad light upon the person utilizing a biased source.
Additionally, citations cannot be used alone.
While a citation may present an argument, it is not good use of a citation to simply copy paste large sections into your browser. Citations should ideally only be citing facts, and facts without analysis are useless. Include either an analysis that supports your argument or cite a small section that has a clear, well-defined fact or argument that supports your argument.
(Bold emphasis mine)
Upvote
0
No, you didn't.
The last time I asked you what a kind was, you provided three different definitions, none of which were consistent. Then you proceeded to provide links that weren't consistent with what you said, either. First you said it was equal to species, but then you said that foxes and dogs are the same kind, even though foxes and dogs can't interbreed, and you never explained any way for us to tell if two animals are the same species or not.
All you're doing in regurgitating creationist boilerplate. But the problem is that you don't have any real understanding of the material, so you can't actually defend it.
Upvote
0
46AND2
Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
- Sep 5, 2012
- 5,807
- 2,210
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
In addition to what last hero just said, loudmouth broke down your "hypothesis" bit by bit and showed why IT ISN'T a hypothesis. Instead of correcting your mistakes, or responding to his critique, you just claim we hand wave your statements away.
Upvote
0
Nothing in your description explained how creationists interpret the evidence. All it is a list of beliefs.
All you need to show is how creationists interpret the evidence.
For example, what features should two species share if they are in the same kind? What type of DNA markers should they share, and why?
We do have evidence.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
I have been trying to discuss the nested hierarchy with you, but you seem reticent to discuss it.
Upvote
0
That isn't a hypothesis. That is a dogmatic statement of faith. A hypothesis doesn't read, "All commonalities are due to a common creator, period."
Also, it needs to differentiate itself from already existing hypotheses. Surely, a common creator and evolution should produce different outcomes, right? So what would those different outcomes be as it relates to common features?
It isn't impossible.
"Here we show that some large-scale deletions of the non-coding DNA referred to as gene deserts2, 3, 4 can be well tolerated by an organism. We deleted two large non-coding intervals, 1,511 kilobases and 845 kilobases in length, from the mouse genome. Viable mice homozygous for the deletions were generated and were indistinguishable from wild-type littermates with regard to morphology, reproductive fitness, growth, longevity and a variety of parameters assaying general homeostasis."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7011/abs/nature03022.html
So what was your original hypothesis?
"Everything would have a specific function, because God is a God of order."
Appears that hypothesis has been falsified.
Why would it? Do we have to know the initial state of the universe in order to evidence the theory that germs cause disease?
I already gave you one of the tests: the nested hierarchy. Why do you keep ignoring it?
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
