What about the differences between chimps and humans?

[Humble_Disciple]

Like myself, Jonathan Wells is not a young earth creationist. Instead, he explains the lack of evidence for natural selection acting on random mutation being responsible for the complexity and diversity of life.

I met Jonathan Wells and heard him speak when I believed in evolution, and he seemed like a reasonable and well-educated person.

 

[driewerf]

Again, let me reiterate:

I am not obligated to hunt for evidence of my positions, like scientists are.

Please don't hold me to your standards, or you'll confuse yourself.That's right. It applies to others

That's a deal. I will not hold you to science's standard per your own request.
But I will continuously point the readers to this post and show them that you insist on having a double standard.

 

[Gene2memE]

Like myself, Jonathan Wells is not a young earth creationist.

He may not be a young earth creationist, but he is a creationist. Specifically a Moonie (Unfication Church).

Wells was sponsored by his church to get his PhD in biology. His position, in his own words, is that "God created the cosmos with a plan in mind" and "that plan included human beings as the final outcome of the creative process: we are created in the image of God."

His objections to evolutionary biology are theology, dressed up with a veneer of biology. Which really explains the entire ID movement as well (a fiction invented to get special creation pushed back into school biology and get around legal decisions).

He's also a terrible liar. Here's a quote: "Yet the oldest fossils show that almost all of the major groups of organisms appeared at around the same time, fully formed and recognizably similar to their modern counterparts."

Two out of those three claims are flatly wrong and one of them is only correct in an incredibly narrow interpretation.

 

[Shemjaza]

Of course wolves and foxes and coyotes are the same kind.. this is basic biology.
The felines tend to be more specialised meat-eaters, have shorter faces and retractable claws. Many of them are ambush, pounce-predators, rather than runners.
The word species is difficult to define, whether you is a creationist or not.
So why all the abuse about " kinds"?
Dogs can easily breed with one another, whether wolves, dingoes, coyotes, or domestic dogs. When dogs breed together, you get dogs; so there is a dog kind.

Creation scientists use the word baramin to refer to created kinds (Hebrew: bara = created, min = kind).

Generally, if two animals can produce a hybrid, then they are considered to be of the same kind.
Hybrids in the feline family include bobcats that mate with domestic cats and bobcats with lynx.

Try mating a dog and a cat...

It doesn't matter if you use kind or baramin, which as you say is a fancy version of kind...

You can't reasonably use "It's basic biology" as a point given you deny evolution, which is basic biology.


In addition, the reason kind is totally useless is that it can't be objectively defined.

"If two populations can reproduce, then they are the same kind." (For example wolves and coyotes).
"If two populations can not reproduce, then they might also still be the same kind." (For example foxes and wolves or cheetahs and lions).

If kind can be either A or Not-A, then it isn't a definition.

It's silly that creatures as different as foxes and wolves get lumped together and humans are chimps who are much closer genetically do not.

In fact I imagine you are comfortable with gibbons and chimps being "ape kind" despite evidence and extinct species linking humans more recently.

 

[AV1611VET]

But I will continuously point the readers to this post and show them that you insist on having a double standard.

These are my personal standards:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

Estrid said:

If there had been "created kinds" the fossil record would show it.

And I said:

Keep looking.

If you see that as a "double standard," that's your prerogative.

 

[Shemjaza]

Jesus said you will know false prophets by their fruits.

Yet Creationist organisations feel the need to lie openly or subtly about evolution and its proponents.

I can tell you that I seem to be a more happy and caring person when I believe the Bible's testimony that we were created from the dust of the ground rather than Darwin's speculation of the survival of the fittest.

How something makes you feel is not a measure of how true it is.

Evolution is a physical process and a scientific theory that explains that process. Its purpose is to explain an aspect of the world.

You feel motivated to be a better person by believing in Creationism, others find the thought of the web of relatedness of life inspiring.

But neither of these options are methods of learning the truth.

Nowhere does the Bible say that earth is less than 10,000 years old, but it does say, from beginning to end, that we were created from dust.

Other Christians disagree about both interpretations.

When you look at the evidence presented for universal common descent, through natural selection acting on random mutations, with the right presuppositions, rather than the presuppositions of naturalism and reductionism, you realize how flimsy the evidence really is.

Why don't you explain the issue with what you call "naturalism and reductionism", specifically.

Evolution is a conclusion from evidence in the physical world. I understand that you prefer your personal favourite interpretation of your religion to be assumed to be true before beginning investigation... but given the diversity of belief that people take on faith without supporting evidence how can you justify your belief any better then a Flat Earther, UFO believer or any other more conventional religion?

On the other hand, I don't need evidence that God created man. If God could raise Jesus from the dead, and if the apostles willingly died for their witness of it, then God could have created Adam from dust.

If you assume an omnipotent God, then literally anything is possible... that doesn't help you discover what is true.

You in turn how you can justify why the evidence indicates a chain of branching family trees of life and eons of mutation/variation rather then a sudden creation recently of all life independently.

 

[Frank Robert]

The fossil evidence for the cat/ dog is a few teeth and ankle bones of an ancient fisher type animal. Pure speculation based an assumptions.

Fossils are not the only evidence and ones we do have complement other evidence from multiple scientific fields. It is the consiliance of evidence from from independent, unrelated sources that converge on strong conclusions.. Your unreliable sources can only deflect and demean the evidence with childish memes which is why you practically never provide links for your ridiculous claims.

 

[Frank Robert]

Like myself, Jonathan Wells is not a young earth creationist. Instead, he explains the lack of evidence for natural selection acting on random mutation being responsible for the complexity and diversity of life.

I met Jonathan Wells and heard him speak when I believed in evolution, and he seemed like a reasonable and well-educated person.

John Corrigan "Jonathan" Wells is an American author, theologian, and advocate of the argument of intelligent design. Jonathan is entitled to his unscientific opinions.

 

[o_mlly]

Which suggests that we didn't evolve from them.

Or any other creature on any other branch. Right?

 

[Astrid]

On the other hand, I don't need evidence that God created man..

Evidence? We don't got no evidence. WE DONT NEED NO STINKING EVIDENCE!

 

[AV1611VET]

On the other hand, I don't need evidence that God created man. If God could raise Jesus from the dead, and if the apostles willingly died for their witness of it, then God could have created Adam from dust.

Evidence? We don't got no evidence.

That's fun to say, isn't it, Estrid?

Those who walk by faith aren't obligated to present evidence, even if there was some.

God knows that there isn't any evidence to convict Him of Creationism; so He confessed it in Writing.

What He did, when He did it, how He did it, where He did it, why He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, why it took Him that long, and who the eyewitnesses were.

 

[Astrid]

He may not be a young earth creationist, but he is a creationist. Specifically a Moonie (Unfication Church).

Wells was sponsored by his church to get his PhD in biology. His position, in his own words, is that "God created the cosmos with a plan in mind" and "that plan included human beings as the final outcome of the creative process: we are created in the image of God."

His objections to evolutionary biology are theology, dressed up with a veneer of biology. Which really explains the entire ID movement as well (a fiction invented to get special creation pushed back into school biology and get around legal decisions).

He's also a terrible liar. Here's a quote: "Yet the oldest fossils show that almost all of the major groups of organisms appeared at around the same time, fully formed and recognizably similar to their modern counterparts."

Two out of those three claims are flatly wrong and one of them is only correct in an incredibly narrow interpretation.

There are no arguments againstToE that are based on data.
Distortions half truths and plain lies are all that's left.

 

[Astrid]

Like myself, Jonathan Wells is not a young earth creationist. Instead, he explains the lack of evidence for natural selection acting on random mutation being responsible for the complexity and diversity of life.

I met Jonathan Wells and heard him speak when I believed in evolution, and he seemed like a reasonable and well-educated person.

Nothing unusual about a person having a convincing
manner. (Con men are specialists in it)
Nothing unusual about being taken in.
I could talk about my last boyfriend.

Anyway-
It is actually impossible to be a well informed and
intellectually honest creationist.

Too bad you were taken in by that slick liar.

It's very hard to accept that one has been conned.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are no arguments against ToE that are based on data.

Time is a dead enough giveaway to stop evolution in its tracks.

There is no such thing as a well informed and intellectually honest "anti evolutionist", however reasonable he may seem to the ill informed.

If there are no "well informed anti-evolutionists," how can they be "intellectually dishonest"?

If I think 7 divided by 0 is 7, I am not a well informed algebraist; but would you say I'm being "intellectually dishonest"?

And if you teach me how algebra works, then I'm now a well informed algebraist; and anyone who would then say, "There are no well informed anti-algebraists," then you are the one that is in error.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is actually impossible to be a well informed and
intellectually honest creationist.

You mean like Jesus is?

 

[renniks]

You can't reasonably use "It's basic biology" as a point given you deny evolution, which is basic biology.

Depends what you mean by evolution. I don't deny natural selection and neither does any creationists that I'm aware of.

 

[renniks]

Fossils are not the only evidence and ones we do have complement other evidence from multiple scientific fields. It is the consiliance of evidence from from independent, unrelated sources that converge on strong conclusions.. Your unreliable sources can only deflect and demean the evidence with childish memes which is why you practically never provide links for your ridiculous claims.

Childish memes? When have I ever posted a meme?
If you start with the assumption that the overall muck to man model is correct then you're going to end up with all kinds of ridiculous assumptions.

 

[Frank Robert]

Childish memes? When have I ever posted a meme?
If you start with the assumption that the overall muck to man model is correct then you're going to end up with all kinds of ridiculous assumptions.

An example of the memes you present in the form of buzzwords such as "muck" in your present comment. Most of your anti-scientific claims appear to be a replication of DI, AIG and ICR endeavors to demean and deflect from the overwhelming body evidence for the ToE. If you want to say, like @AV1611VET that the "bible settles," that is fine, but your statements to demean and deflect from the evolutionary science are a waste of time.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Those who walk by faith aren't obligated to present evidence, even if there was some.

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

One doesn't need to prove special creation to believe that it's true.

The lack of evidence for natural selection acting on random mutation being responsible for the complexity and diversity of life should be enough to seek an alternative, God's Word.

Nowhere does the Bible say, however, that the creation took place less than 10,000 years ago.

 

[AV1611VET]

One doesn't need to prove special creation to believe that it's true.

Correct you are.

Nowhere does the Bible say, however, that the creation took place less than 10,000 years ago.

Nor does It say the crucifixion took place 1988 years ago.