Well kudos for coming back Arafax. I was starting to wonder there for a while. 
My big problem with these mega multi arguements is that they get SOO hard to quote! So I'll just stick to a few buller points and try to cover things.
On Definitions:
I understand your point about definitions and it certainly is important to pin meanings down. But I've never seen Cosmic or Chemical evolution mentioned by anyone apart from Hovind or those echoing him. Textbooks might refer to cosmology or chemistry but they don't do so in respect to evolution.
But you did at least define The Theory of Evolution as relating to 'Macro Evolution' so that's pinned down. Yah!
On Kind:
Well you've given us the most clear cut definition of 'kind' that I have ever seen on these boards so that deserves some praise.
But it still leaves something to be desired. It's too flexible to say that they can interbreed but sometimes can't. In this case how does one decide what fits in a kind? It can't be purely breeding because some kinds can't interbreed. So what you are left with is a system of purely arbitrary definition. Unless you're going to use genetics of course but then you need to define the genetic specifics of a kind.
On Macro Evolution.
I know you're going to say 'But it's still a (lets say) Rabbit.'
You accept Micro evolution so lets add an accumulation of micro.
The rabbit now has shorter ears. (I can't say why exactly but it's quite concievable.)
This short eared rabbit starts spending a lot more time above ground and less in tunnels. It's limbs become a little, longer, allowing them to run faster.
The environment starts heating up and their thick fur becomes a burden so they end up with shorter fur. In this hotter environment isn't as good for greens but there are a lot of small bugs around. Rabbits that are better at deriving nurients from bugs become more prevalent. It's just micro evolution.
Over time they become more dependant on bugs than grass. They start hunting them. Then the bugs start fying out but there are still shrews. Because of ths digestive shift to bugs, they can now get some nutrients from eating shrews. Those that are better breed more often. Shrews of course are hard to chace and catch so bigger, faster long legged rabits are better at it.
So now we have a shorteared, long legged, surface dwelling predator.
It's only been small changes over time. Is it still a rabbit? If thise is impossible, why?
On New Information:
You'll need to define what information is. Genetic mutations can add more genes. For example AGGAT becomes AGGATT which can be a very different thing. How is this not new information? It's like arguing that we can't create new words becase we just use the same letters.
The new information arguement falls apart because mutations can and do generate an increase in genes.
(If you say this is impossible because of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics I'm so gonna slap ya!
)
On answersingenesis and aig
The problem with their mission statements is not that hey believe the world to be 6000 years old. It's that there can never be anything EVER to prove they are wrong.
If scientists came across evidence that the universe was a trillion years old then they would probably check if it was an error. They'll double check it and get someone else to examine the results. It will be put before the scientistific community and there will be much debate. But if the evidence shows that the universe is in fact much much older than believed, they will accept it.
But the missions statements of the creationists above say that any evidence that refutes them will be wrong and ignored. Flat out ignored.
Imagine if I applied that to other areas. For example (And I don't mean to offend anyone with this statement) Imagine if I asserted that all crime was committed by men. It is my groups mission statement that all crime is committed by men and any evidence contradicting that must be wrong.
Show me a case of a crime committed by a woman and I will ignore it and dismiss it as wrong. I will only ever read and present evidence that supports my theory.
Surely you must see what's wrong with this!
On Kent Hovind.
If I can lie faster than you can tell the truth does that make me right?
If I can win a crowd over with my lies, does that make me right?
He is a very good speaker. But he is not a scientist. He is a show man.
He can be corrected on points and then he'll use the same arguement the next day to a different audience, usually one stacked to his beliefs.
He refuses any written debate, claiming that he doesn't have time.
In truth, it's just that a written debate allows lies to be refuted thoroughly.
Okay. I think that covers everything.
And though you may be derided on the boards a little (it's inevitable We evolutionists are so jaded
) You are doing fairly well at explaining yourself and offering replies to questions. Keep it up.
But if you start a new thread, try and stick to a specific topic. It makes things a whole lot clearer.
My big problem with these mega multi arguements is that they get SOO hard to quote! So I'll just stick to a few buller points and try to cover things.
On Definitions:
I understand your point about definitions and it certainly is important to pin meanings down. But I've never seen Cosmic or Chemical evolution mentioned by anyone apart from Hovind or those echoing him. Textbooks might refer to cosmology or chemistry but they don't do so in respect to evolution.
But you did at least define The Theory of Evolution as relating to 'Macro Evolution' so that's pinned down. Yah!
On Kind:
Well you've given us the most clear cut definition of 'kind' that I have ever seen on these boards so that deserves some praise.
But it still leaves something to be desired. It's too flexible to say that they can interbreed but sometimes can't. In this case how does one decide what fits in a kind? It can't be purely breeding because some kinds can't interbreed. So what you are left with is a system of purely arbitrary definition. Unless you're going to use genetics of course but then you need to define the genetic specifics of a kind.
On Macro Evolution.
I know you're going to say 'But it's still a (lets say) Rabbit.'
You accept Micro evolution so lets add an accumulation of micro.
The rabbit now has shorter ears. (I can't say why exactly but it's quite concievable.)
This short eared rabbit starts spending a lot more time above ground and less in tunnels. It's limbs become a little, longer, allowing them to run faster.
The environment starts heating up and their thick fur becomes a burden so they end up with shorter fur. In this hotter environment isn't as good for greens but there are a lot of small bugs around. Rabbits that are better at deriving nurients from bugs become more prevalent. It's just micro evolution.
Over time they become more dependant on bugs than grass. They start hunting them. Then the bugs start fying out but there are still shrews. Because of ths digestive shift to bugs, they can now get some nutrients from eating shrews. Those that are better breed more often. Shrews of course are hard to chace and catch so bigger, faster long legged rabits are better at it.
So now we have a shorteared, long legged, surface dwelling predator.
It's only been small changes over time. Is it still a rabbit? If thise is impossible, why?
On New Information:
You'll need to define what information is. Genetic mutations can add more genes. For example AGGAT becomes AGGATT which can be a very different thing. How is this not new information? It's like arguing that we can't create new words becase we just use the same letters.
The new information arguement falls apart because mutations can and do generate an increase in genes.
(If you say this is impossible because of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics I'm so gonna slap ya!
)On answersingenesis and aig
The problem with their mission statements is not that hey believe the world to be 6000 years old. It's that there can never be anything EVER to prove they are wrong.
If scientists came across evidence that the universe was a trillion years old then they would probably check if it was an error. They'll double check it and get someone else to examine the results. It will be put before the scientistific community and there will be much debate. But if the evidence shows that the universe is in fact much much older than believed, they will accept it.
But the missions statements of the creationists above say that any evidence that refutes them will be wrong and ignored. Flat out ignored.
Imagine if I applied that to other areas. For example (And I don't mean to offend anyone with this statement) Imagine if I asserted that all crime was committed by men. It is my groups mission statement that all crime is committed by men and any evidence contradicting that must be wrong.
Show me a case of a crime committed by a woman and I will ignore it and dismiss it as wrong. I will only ever read and present evidence that supports my theory.
Surely you must see what's wrong with this!
On Kent Hovind.
If I can lie faster than you can tell the truth does that make me right?
If I can win a crowd over with my lies, does that make me right?
He is a very good speaker. But he is not a scientist. He is a show man.
He can be corrected on points and then he'll use the same arguement the next day to a different audience, usually one stacked to his beliefs.
He refuses any written debate, claiming that he doesn't have time.
In truth, it's just that a written debate allows lies to be refuted thoroughly.
Okay. I think that covers everything.
And though you may be derided on the boards a little (it's inevitable We evolutionists are so jaded
) You are doing fairly well at explaining yourself and offering replies to questions. Keep it up. But if you start a new thread, try and stick to a specific topic. It makes things a whole lot clearer.
Upvote
0
