proving evolution as just a "theory"

[ruthiesea]

That’s because you choose to ignore those mountains of data.

Asian remains Asian despite all those mutations. African remains African despite all those mutations. Husky remains Husky despite all those mutations. Mastiff remains Mastiff despite all those mutations. Black bears remain black bears despite all those mutations. Cardinals remain Cardinals despite all those mutations. How many of the hundreds of thousands of animals do you need me to list? Every animal that exists as well as every fossil creature that existed.

Mountains of data falsifying your theory, but you can’t even see it, even if it’s right in front of your nose.

You are merely showing your ignorance about evolution.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Interbreeding with what, other wolves? I've never seen a wolf mating with another wolf give birth to anything but a wolf.

Have you?

I thought we discussed the affects of less genetic variability through inbreeding already? Did you forget that discussion? Ahh that must have been with someone that understood science and wasn’t scared of it. Why be scared of science? Do you not believe the same Creator that penned the Bible created everything? It’s not the science to be feared or that is wrong. It’s just the PR evolutionary interpretations that are flawed.

DNA testing shows that they had a common Creator. That's why they have common DNA.

Sure they did. The One who created the original two wolves, or whatever originally led to the different wolf breeds. Grey wolf, mid eastern wolf, etc......

So just as Husky mates with Mastiff and makes a Chinook, so the different wolf breeds mated and made the Husky.

Show me a wolf mating with another wolf giving birth to a Pekingese. Clearly it's never happened, thus Pekingese is one of the originally created Dog Kinds. A questionable creation perhaps, but who are we to question God?

And was the Chinook also one of those originally created as well? The problem with fanatical beliefs is it gets you into trouble, by not accepting how life propagates, and how we observed the Chinook come into existence...

So were Asians, Africans, Latinos and the other 15 races created separately as well?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You are merely showing your ignorance about evolution.

You are merely showing your inability to defend against the mountains of evidence.

I understand, ad hominem attacks is what all evolutionists resort to in the end when the mountains of empericial data end up falsifying their theory, yet they can’t bring themselves to abandon their beliefs they have invested so much time in. It’s an old worn out tactic of attack the poster when one cannot answer the post itself. Old and worn out and simply shows your fear.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You are an ape too. If you claim that you are not an ape then you are not a human being. And you are using a strawman of evolution again. No wonder that you can't understand it.

Your next comment shows your error.

Wrong again. And a rather blatant error. "Kinds" is a term that creationists cannot define and yet try to use. Those on the side of science do not use that word. And no, they don't "change into other species". Once again with the strawman.

Except apes are not the same species as humans. So if apes don’t change species, you should let the biologists know they have humans classified incorrectly.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You could tell him that evolution has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of Christianity, and that there are lots and lots of Christians, including many Christian scientists, who accept the findings of science. Focus on what matters, not on what doesn't.

I accept the findings of science. It’s the PR of evolutionists twisting what the science really says I disagree with.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Sorry, but this is just wrong. The basic reality of evolution has been the consensus view among scientists for well over a century, and its validity and importance have only been cemented by all of the discoveries in between. There is lots of debate in the scientific literature about the details and mechanisms of evolution, but none at all about its reality.

There should be.

Asian remains Asian, African remains African. Only when Asian and African mate does a new variety, the Afro-Asian enter the species. The Asian does not evolve into the Afro-Asian, nor does the African.

This is why every single fossil found remains the same from the oldest to the youngest fossil found for every type of creature. In other words, T-Rex for example never changes over the hundreds of millions of years its fossils date to. None of them do, because as observation has shown us, Asian remain Asian and do not evolve into the Afro-Asian.

It is simply mistakes in classification by those who believe in evolution when classifying the fossil record. Creatures they never saw in life and could not observe which creature mated with what creature to create another type in that species. Just as Asian mates with African and creates another type in our species.

There’s nothing at all wrong with the science, just the PR evolutionary slant that is incorrectly attached to it. Black bears stay black bears, cardinals stay cardinals, etc, etc, because through inbreeding over the years from the original perfect genetic strain, those traits have been set into the genome. No, the science is sound, as is the observational evidence that Asian remain Asian and do not evolve into the Afro-Asian. It is simply incorrect beliefs that life somehow magically propagated differently in the past than we observe today. That fossil A evolved into fossil C, instead of the reality that fossil A mated with Fossil B and produced fossil C. Just as we observe Asian mate with African and produce the Afro-Asian. And this is true with every single animal in existence.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

There should be.

Asian remains Asian, African remains African. Only when Asian and African mate does a new variety, the Afro-Asian enter the species. The Asian does not evolve into the Afro-Asian, nor does the African.

This is why every single fossil found remains the same from the oldest to the youngest fossil found for every type of creature. In other words, T-Rex for example never changes over the hundreds of millions of years its fossils date to. None of them do, because as observation has shown us, Asian remain Asian and do not evolve into the Afro-Asian.

It is simply mistakes in classification by those who believe in evolution when classifying the fossil record. Creatures they never saw in life and could not observe which creature mated with what creature to create another type in that species. Just as Asian mates with African and creates another type in our species.

There’s nothing at all wrong with the science, just the PR evolutionary slant that is incorrectly attached to it. Black bears stay black bears, cardinals stay cardinals, etc, etc, because through inbreeding over the years from the original perfect genetic strain, those traits have been set into the genome. No, the science is sound, as is the observational evidence that Asian remain Asian and do not evolve into the Afro-Asian. It is simply incorrect beliefs that life somehow magically propagated differently in the past than we observe today. That fossil A evolved into fossil C, instead of the reality that fossil A mated with Fossil B and produced fossil C. Just as we observe Asian mate with African and produce the Afro-Asian. And this is true with every single animal in existence.....

Your inability to understand the theory does not refute it. Would you like to work on your understanding a bit?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your next comment shows your error.

Nope, it only shows that you do not understand biology.

Except apes are not the same species as humans. So if apes don’t change species, you should let the biologists know they have humans classified incorrectly.

Humans are apes, "ape" is not a species, it is a larger category. You are an ape just as you are a mammal. And you still do not understand how evolution works. Perhaps we should work on the concept of species first.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Citation required. Where exactly is it written that closely related species can never interbreed? It seems to be a definition that you’ve made up.

It’s written in that very definition of species you ignore. If two can interbreed, they are the same species, therefore they can not be separate species or even closely related species.

Stop ignoring the scientific definition of species.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s written in that very definition of species you ignore. If two can interbreed, they are the same species, therefore they can not be separate species or even closely related species.

Stop ignoring the scientific definition of species.

Why did you not supply the source of your definition? Can you find a valid source that agrees with you?

 

[TLK Valentine]

The long, convoluted, back and forth, senseless, cruel history of spectacularly inefficient natural selection is inconsistent with the omnipotent, benevolent God of Christianity. The more you know about evolution, the less likely Christianity seems. The more you understand and believe in Christianity, the less acceptable evolution seems as an explanation of life on earth. The two are incompatible and the rational decision is to make a choice. Otherwise you have to lop off bits of both to squeeze them together in your brain.

Not necessarily so. The only thing that evolution is inconsistent with is the Christian creation story -- Which we must remember was never "theirs" in the first place; it was hijacked from the Jews.

The belief that man is in a sinful state that is estranged from God, and that faith that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, can reconcile this condition, is not affected by evolution. So one can be a Christian and an evolutionist without clashing too many mental gears.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Your inability to understand the theory does not refute it. Would you like to work on your understanding a bit?

What understanding is that, where we pretend an Asian evolves into the Afro-Asian by mutation so we can ignore how it happens in real life?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Why did you not supply the source of your definition? Can you find a valid source that agrees with you?

Ask him, he’s the one that supplied the very definition under debate. But since you ask, why take your pick.

species | Definition of species in English by Oxford Dictionaries

Species definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

species Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Species - Biology-Online Dictionary

Definition of SPECIES

the definition of species

But keep ignoring the definition, it’s your only hope to keep your false beliefs alive. I notice you gave none......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not necessarily so. The only thing that evolution is inconsistent with is the Christian creation story -- Which we must remember was never "theirs" in the first place; it was hijacked from the Jews.

The belief that man is in a sinful state that is estranged from God, and that faith that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, can reconcile this condition, is not affected by evolution. So one can be a Christian and an evolutionist without clashing too many mental gears.

So did you hijack God from the Jews too then? I mean, He was “theirs” in the first place too...... That man is in a sinful state and estranged from God was “theirs” too..... ahhh, that’s different tho, right?

 

[TLK Valentine]

So did you hijack God from the Jews too then?

Me? I didn't hijack anything -- I'm not a Christian, remember?

I mean, He was “theirs” in the first place too......

Indeed, which is why for most of the first century AD, Christianity was considered a sect of Judaism, and not a separate religion. You can google the word "schism," to understand how that generally works.

That man is in a sinful state and estranged from God was “theirs” too..... ahhh, that’s different tho, right?

Pretty much different -- the Jews tend to base their relationship with God not on the events of their creation story, but on the covenant -- so long as the Jews keep to the laws that God set for them to follow, He would provide for them.

Along comes Jesus, an observant Jew, who proposes a new covenant... Same God, different relationships...

Anything else I can help you with tonight?

 

[pitabread]

Would you like to work on your understanding a bit?

They clearly would not. Reportedly they've been at this for awhile and appear to be a lost cause.

Oh well.

 

[pitabread]

I thought we discussed the affects of less genetic variability through inbreeding already? Did you forget that discussion?

Oh we have, I've just given up on trying to explain how biology really works and instead am talking your own flawed interpretation to its logical conclusion. Namely that if biology really worked the way you seem to think it works (all this stuff about Huskies only producing Huskies), there would have to be numerous originally created dog kinds, wolf kinds, cat kinds, etc, to account for the variety we have today.

Yet inexplicably you appear to reject your own view of how biology works in favor of the evolutionary scenario when it comes to explaining, say, the domestication and resultant breeds of dogs.

You continually contradict your own views from one post to the next. It's odd.

Sure they did. The One who created the original two wolves, or whatever originally led to the different wolf breeds. Grey wolf, mid eastern wolf, etc......

Based on the diversity among modern wolves, you'd probably be looking at least 7 or 8 original wolf "kinds" to account for what we have today. That is, if biology worked how you seem to think it works.

And was the Chinook also one of those originally created as well? The problem with fanatical beliefs is it gets you into trouble, by not accepting how life propagates, and how we observed the Chinook come into existence...

So were Asians, Africans, Latinos and the other 15 races created separately as well?

Based on how you think biology works, they would have to be. You've extended the number of originally created kinds a dozen-fold at least. At least compared to what other creationists think.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ask him, he’s the one that supplied the very definition under debate. But since you ask, why take your pick.

species | Definition of species in English by Oxford Dictionaries

Species definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

species Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Species - Biology-Online Dictionary

Definition of SPECIES

the definition of species

But keep ignoring the definition, it’s your only hope to keep your false beliefs alive. I notice you gave none......

None of those support your claim. You do not appear to understand them. And worse yet you have yet to substantiate your claim about Darwin's finches. You have supplied articles that some of them could interbreed, not that all of them could interbreed.

And then there are ring species which is undeniable speciation. A can breed with B which can breed with C etc. but when A meets up with the last in the series they can no longer interbreed. That is a reasonable outcome from evolution but one that creationists are unable to explain at all.

 

[Gene2memE]

Are you saying that Creation Scientists are not included in the science community?

There are scientists who have creationist beliefs.
There are creationists who are active scientists.

But, if you attempt to bring a supernatural element - such as divine creation - into the sciences, you're violating one of the basic modalities of the sciences. Science is NECESSARILY limited to the study the natural world.

So a 'creation scientist' is either a scientist, or a creationist, but they cannot be acting as both at the same time - these are two mutually exclusive categories.

 

[Jimmy D]

Ask him, he’s the one that supplied the very definition under debate. But since you ask, why take your pick.

species | Definition of species in English by Oxford Dictionaries

Species definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

species Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Species - Biology-Online Dictionary

Definition of SPECIES

the definition of species

But keep ignoring the definition, it’s your only hope to keep your false beliefs alive. I notice you gave none......

Nope, nothing there that says closely related species can't interbreed.