If there were no Hell...

[Gene Parmesan]

So, science requires observable evidence over time for anything to be true. Can you give me a specific example of change in kind, one species evolving into another?

Can we get this off-topic? I've been on forums where warnings would be issued for such things. I know there's a whole sub-forum for evolution discussion. I'm fine to discuss it here if it's alright though.

First, I'd need to know what a "kind" is.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

I'm sorry. I suppose you did sort of clarify that a "change in kind" is "one species evolving into another." Is that right?

 

[DarthNeo]

I'm sorry. I suppose you did sort of clarify that a "change in kind" is "one species evolving into another." Is that right?

Yes...

 

[Gene Parmesan]

So, science requires observable evidence over time for anything to be true. Can you give me a specific example of change in kind, one species evolving into another?

Speciation events have been observed countless times. It would seem really arbitrary for me to just pick one. Do you contest that speciation occurs? If not, do you want to redefine "kinds" or clarify your question?

 

[DarthNeo]

Speciation events have been observed countless times. It would seem really arbitrary for me to just pick one. Do you contest that speciation occurs? If not, do you want to redefine "kinds" or clarify your question?

I am not talking speciation, I am talking about a species completely evolving into another species, not about beaks on a bird changing (that is adaptation). I am talking about one KIND changing into another KIND...has you or science had observable evidence of this?

 

[Gene Parmesan]

I am not talking speciation, I am talking about a species completely evolving into another species, not about beaks on a bird changing (that is adaptation). I am talking about one KIND changing into another KIND...has you or science had observable evidence of this?

I'd like to take a moment to thank you for the respectful tone of your messages. I appreciate it.

I'm sorry, I don't want to talk past each other here. Speciation is one species becoming two species. Different species. If this is different from "kinds" I would like a more specific definition of "kinds" as you are using it.

I'm wondering if you could also help me understand how you view evolution. Is your view of evolution that species will give birth to something that is a different species than its parent?

 

[DarthNeo]

I'd like to take a moment to thank you for the respectful tone of your messages. I appreciate it.

I'm sorry, I don't want to talk past each other here. Speciation is one species becoming two species. Different species. If this is different from "kinds" I would like a more specific definition of "kinds" as you are using it.

I'm wondering if you could also help me understand how you view evolution. Is your view of evolution that species will give birth to something that is a different species than its parent?

Thanks for the compliment, if people who may not see eye to eye cannot discuss things civilly, there is a huge problem...

Change of kind is one thing "evolving" into something entirely different...

Here, watch this video to see what I mean...

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Thanks for the compliment, if people who may not see eye to eye cannot discuss things civilly, there is a huge problem...

Change of kind is one thing "evolving" into something entirely different...

Here, watch this video to see what I mean...

I agree.

I watched the whole video! (Phew!) So, naturally, there are about a dozen things I want to comment on regarding this Ray Comfort video but I'm going to focus on the part that I think was meant to answer my question. He referred to "kinds" and gave examples like "cat kind" and "dog kind" and "human kind." I want to make sure I understand, would you say that lions and tigers are cat kinds?

I believe this was to illustrate that it takes "faith" to believe in evolution, correct? It's hard to come away from that video without concluding that faith is not a good way to know something; evolution for example. That seems to be the overall theme of the video. "Ah ha, so you need faith!" He also asks for evidence and when they don't satisfy him he states they have to have "faith," which seems to be a different usage of the word rather than what we were discussing earlier, would you agree? It seemed to me that you used evidence to guide your "faith," rather than using "faith" due to a lack of evidence.

I never really like to use the world "faith." I'd rather speak in levels of confidence. Ray starts off suggesting we can't know something that happened millions of years ago. And in a way, I kind of agree in that I don't think we can know anything 100%. But as information accumulates, it becomes reasonable to be confident that the proposition is true until such a time as the evidence suggests otherwise.

 

[DarthNeo]

I agree.

I watched the whole video! (Phew!) So, naturally, there are about a dozen things I want to comment on regarding this Ray Comfort video but I'm going to focus on the part that I think was meant to answer my question. He referred to "kinds" and gave examples like "cat kind" and "dog kind" and "human kind." I want to make sure I understand, would you say that lions and tigers are cat kinds?

I believe this was to illustrate that it takes "faith" to believe in evolution, correct? It's hard to come away from that video without concluding that faith is not a good way to know something; evolution for example. That seems to be the overall theme of the video. "Ah ha, so you need faith!" He also asks for evidence and when they don't satisfy him he states they have to have "faith," which seems to be a different usage of the word rather than what we were discussing earlier, would you agree? It seemed to me that you used evidence to guide your "faith," rather than using "faith" due to a lack of evidence.

I never really like to use the world "faith." I'd rather speak in levels of confidence. Ray starts off suggesting we can't know something that happened millions of years ago. And in a way, I kind of agree in that I don't think we can know anything 100%. But as information accumulates, it becomes reasonable to be confident that the proposition is true until such a time as the evidence suggests otherwise.

Thanks for watching the video. I guess the point it makes, is that, there is no more provable evidence for evolution than there is for God - believing either requires faith. Now when you look at the SCIENCE involved, say, random, happen stance of creations VS Intelligent design, well there is MUCH more evidence for Intelligent Design...

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Thanks for watching the video. I guess the point it makes, is that, there is no more provable evidence for evolution than there is for God - believing either requires faith. Now when you look at the SCIENCE involved, say, random, happen stance of creations VS Intelligent design, well there is MUCH more evidence for Intelligent Design...

So believing either requires "faith." And you equate that with a lack of provable evidence. I feel like I am misunderstanding because you go on to talk about how much evidence there is for Intelligent Design.

I'm definitely intrigued that you find Intelligent Design to be more justified by evidence than Evolution. Ray seems to indicate that only "observable" evidence can justify a scientific theory, do you believe that ID provides this level of evidence? Do you agree that only "observable" evidence can justify a scientific theory or are there other ways to observe the likelihood of something without directly witnessing the entire thing happen?

 

[DarthNeo]

So believing either requires "faith." And you equate that with a lack of provable evidence. I feel like I am misunderstanding because you go on to talk about how much evidence there is for Intelligent Design.

I'm definitely intrigued that you find Intelligent Design to be more justified by evidence than Evolution. Ray seems to indicate that only "observable" evidence can justify a scientific theory, do you believe that ID provides this level of evidence? Do you agree that only "observable" evidence can justify a scientific theory or are there other ways to observe the likelihood of something without directly witnessing the entire thing happen?

I am not the one that requires proof...I already have faith. However the proofs available that support Intelligent Design are much greater than those that support a random happening...

 

[Gene Parmesan]

I totally get where you are coming from, but, and I don't even necessarily like this answer, but when you are God, you get to make the rules. So...God hates sin, cannot have anything to do with it. But He made it pretty easy to deal with, for mankind anyway, NOT His Son. Christ did the hard part, he became the death and blood offering that God requires to pay for sin. As mankind, we merely need to have FAITH that Christ is who He is and believe He did what He did. When we stand before God, He will not have a scale, weighing our good actions against our bad, he will look into our hearts and say either, You had faith in my son...or you didn't. There are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many other issues that I even question. But when you get RIGHT down to it, God provided such a gracious way for us to escape hell...

I am not the one that requires proof...I already have faith. However the proofs available that support Intelligent Design are much greater than those that support a random happening...

Okay, so I think that answers my question from yesterday about how you would define faith. You state here that because of faith, you don't need proof. So to tie it back to the topic of your thread and where we left off yesterday, if that kind of "faith" is what is required of me in order to avoid Hell, I would find such a concept hard to subscribe to and without it, I'd be more likely to be a Christian than I am right now.

If you'd like to retract that and then go on to talk about this "proof" of ID, I'm happy to continue the discussion. It seems to be that ID boils down to, "look how complex and unlikely this is, therefore God." I don't want to strawman you here, so please let me know if I am wrong.

And I'd still like to know if lions and tigers are "cat kinds."

 

[Rajni]

When it comes to intelligent design, my view is very basic. Just as I wouldn't
assume that the pyramids just appeared out of nowhere but had a designer, I
also can't assume that everything else around me just appeared out of nowhere
sans designer.

Now, as to the specifics about that designer, ultimately all we have is our
respective faith-systems and what they teach about that designer. We don't
*know* for sure, but we have faith that the designer is [enter description here
based on religious affiliation].

We can conclude some things about the designer based on what we see around
us, such as love being part of that designer's makeup, but beyond that it gets
very, shall we say, "through a glass darkly".

 

[DarthNeo]

Okay, so I think that answers my question from yesterday about how you would define faith. You state here that because of faith, you don't need proof. So to tie it back to the topic of your thread and where we left off yesterday, if that kind of "faith" is what is required of me in order to avoid Hell, I would find such a concept hard to subscribe to and without it, I'd be more likely to be a Christian than I am right now.

If you'd like to retract that and then go on to talk about this "proof" of ID, I'm happy to continue the discussion. It seems to be that ID boils down to, "look how complex and unlikely this is, therefore God." I don't want to strawman you here, so please let me know if I am wrong.

And I'd still like to know if lions and tigers are "cat kinds."

Yes, lions tigers and cats are KINDS of the same species...

I mean where a cat turns into a Rhino or a whale or to a catman even...

And even though I dont need proof because of faith, doesnt mean that there isnt proof...

Romans 1:20 - For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

There is NO way randomness created the universe, it was Intelligent Design - God was/is that designer...

 

[Gene Parmesan]

When it comes to intelligent design, my view is very basic. Just as I wouldn't
assume that the pyramids just appeared out of nowhere but had a designer, I
also can't assume that everything else around me just appeared out of nowhere
sans designer.

Now, as to the specifics about that designer, ultimately all we have is our
respective faith-systems and what they teach about that designer. We don't
*know* for sure, but we have faith that the designer is [enter description here
based on religious affiliation].

We can conclude some things about the designer based on what we see around
us, such as love being part of that designer's makeup, but beyond that it gets
very, shall we say, "through a glass darkly".

So if I understand, the premise is that we can differentiate that which is designed from that which is not designed. And the conclusion is that everything is designed?

 

[DarthNeo]

So if I understand, the premise is that we can differentiate that which is designed from that which is not designed. And the conclusion is that everything is designed?

Yes...God designed it all...

 

[Larniavc]

All I can say (the words you use in your question assume a certain understanding which I'm not sure agrees with what I'm lead to understand) is that, if it were made undeniable to me that death was the end of all existence; I would still be kind to others, love others, try to help others as I could; I would still forgive without hesitation, ask for forgiveness when my heart condemned me; show mercy, defend the weak with all my strength, and never stop never stopping. I would be exactly the same as I am now. Nothing would change. I'm not who I am for desire of reward or fear of punishment; I am who I am, because that's who I am.

Me too.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Yes, lions tigers and cats are KINDS of the same species...

I mean where a cat turns into a Rhino or a whale or to a catman even...

And even though I dont need proof because of faith, doesnt mean that there isnt proof...

Romans 1:20 - For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

There is NO way randomness created the universe, it was Intelligent Design - God was/is that designer...

Okay, lions and tigers are of the kind. And what about chimpanzees and gorillas? Are they of the same kind? I hope you'll indulge me so that I can have a clear understanding of kinds.

I'm having a difficult time with your view of evolution. If you think cats turning into rhinos or any of that is what evolution states, I would say that we have a very very different understanding of evolution. I might have to take that as a sign to move on from the evolution discussion here. There would just be too much clarifying necessary to progress.

 

[Rajni]

So if I understand, the premise is that we can differentiate that which is designed from that which is not designed. And the conclusion is that everything is designed?

That's my take on it, yes.


-

 

[DarthNeo]

Okay, lions and tigers are of the kind. And what about chimpanzees and gorillas? Are they of the same kind? I hope you'll indulge me so that I can have a clear understanding of kinds.

I'm having a difficult time with your view of evolution. If you think cats turning into rhinos or any of that is what evolution states, I would say that we have a very very different understanding of evolution. I might have to take that as a sign to move on from the evolution discussion here. There would just be too much clarifying necessary to progress.

But Darwin says we alllll came from the same beginning, so who do ALL those KINDS have the same ancestral root?

http://entocourses.tamu.edu/ento601/images/20090206234025!Tree_of_life_by_Haeckel.jpg