What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[Paul James]

A cat is any member of the Family Felidae. The domestic cat, which is what I presume you are talking about, is Felis Catus, a member of the subfamily Felinae.
A dog is any member of the family Canidae. The domestic Dog is Canis Lupis Familiaris., a subspecies of Canis Lupus. So you see, the English language is not limited in it's ability to characterize these creatures quite specifically. How does your "type" fit into that?

Dogs and cats cannot mate and produce offsprng. That's how we know they are different species, A mule is a sterile hybrid, not a "different type of horse."

If that happened, the theory of evolution would be sunk for sure.

We could twist and turn with different word meanings and end up chasing our tails (pun enjoyed but unintended). The differences between lions, tigers, cougars, and domestic cats are genetic differences and not evolutionary, but they are all of the same "cat" family. We don't know which was the original animal with the complete genetic information to be able to have all its different descendants. It could have been the sabre toothed tiger, if it actually existed as the first "cat". But then, as you have classified different cats into different categories of cats, then it is valid to suppose that a number of different forms of cat were created in the first place, which enabled all the different breeds of cats to result. Then again, if it all started with just two sabre tooth tigers, male and female, then over time, because of the decay in the gene pool, mutations could have happened to produce different cat offspring.

Actually, we don't really know how all this happened, because no one was there to observe or examine the development. But we do have the present evidence that it did happen, because of multitude of different forms of "cat" throughout the world. But we don't have any present evidence that any four legged land animals evolved into blue whales, as is depicted on evolutionary artist impressions of that development. But we know that whales existed at the time of creation, because the Bible says so; therefore it is valid to theorise that Orca and the different types of dolphin could have been genetic mutations of the original whales.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We could twist and turn with different word meanings and end up chasing our tails (pun enjoyed but unintended). The differences between lions, tigers, cougars, and domestic cats are genetic differences and not evolutionary, but they are all of the same "cat" family. We don't know which was the original animal with the complete genetic information to be able to have all its different descendants. It could have been the sabre toothed tiger, if it actually existed as the first "cat". But then, as you have classified different cats into different categories of cats, then it is valid to suppose that a number of different forms of cat were created in the first place, which enabled all the different breeds of cats to result. Then again, if it all started with just two sabre tooth tigers, male and female, then over time, because of the decay in the gene pool, mutations could have happened to produce different cat offspring.

Actually, we don't really know how all this happened, because no one was there to observe or examine the development. But we do have the present evidence that it did happen, because of multitude of different forms of "cat" throughout the world. But we don't have any present evidence that any four legged land animals evolved into blue whales, as is depicted on evolutionary artist impressions of that development. But we know that whales existed at the time of creation, because the Bible says so; therefore it is valid to theorise that Orca and the different types of dolphin could have been genetic mutations of the original whales.

Here "the Bible says so" is not evidence for or against evolution. That is merely your interpretation of the Bible. There are many, probably most Christians worldwide, that do not take Genesis literally at all. So rather than just claiming things how would you show that your ideas are correct?

 

[pitabread]

What you may be talking about is genetic mutation rather than evolution. Also reproduction within the same organism type is not evolution.

Reproduction and genetic mutations are part of the process of evolution.

 

[Paul James]

Reproduction and genetic mutations are part of the process of evolution.

Oh? So it doesn't totally involve time and chance? Wouldn't that scupper the theory about apes evolving into humans through time and chance over millions of years?

 

[Shemjaza]

Because you are implying that I am dishonest and immoral, that ends our conversation.

I said "their", not "your".

Do you want to present an actual idea about how information is detected or formed within Creationism?
Do you know one?

You presented a comic that was dishonest, and I took offense at that.
I would hope that you would recognise that misrepresenting someone else's view is inappropriate and avoid doing that in future.

 

[Speedwell]

Oh? So it doesn't totally involve time and chance? Wouldn't that scupper the theory about apes evolving into humans through time and chance over millions of years?

It involves randomly distributed variation and natural selection over extended periods of time. I don't know what you mean by "time and chance."

 

[Hans Blaster]

Creationism is a belief system based on the literal history of Genesis 1-3. Scientific discovery can only look at the evidence in the present and interpret it according to the Creation belief system.

This might be the most accurate description of Creationism (see I capitalized it) I've ever seen. It's a sect of Christianity.

Evolution is also a belief system, based on a set of theories about how origin may have happened. It can look at the same evidence and come to entirely different conclusions about what that evidence shows.

And now we're off the rails. Evolution is science like physics, not a belief system.

 

[Hans Blaster]

A black cat and a white cat can produce a black and white cat, which is another type of cat. But a dog, mating with a cat, cannot produce another kind of animal such as a dog/cat. But a horse can mate with a donkey and produce a mule, but then the mule is just another type of horse, not another animal kind.

I would suggest you read up about animal hydbridization.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But we know that whales existed at the time of creation, because the Bible says so; therefore it is valid to theorise that Orca and the different types of dolphin could have been genetic mutations of the original whales.

the bible is not a valid reference on this. It gets things clearly wrong. If it does say this, it is definitely wrong.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Oh? So it doesn't totally involve time and chance? Wouldn't that scupper the theory about apes evolving into humans through time and chance over millions of years?

Humans are just one modern form of ape.

 

[Paul James]

This might be the most accurate description of Creationism (see I capitalized it) I've ever seen. It's a sect of Christianity.



And now we're off the rails. Evolution is science like physics, not a belief system.

As I have said, true science involves direct observation, examination, testing and replication. Evolution has none of those things. It is a guess work attempt to determine the past by present evidence that does not clearly support it.

 

[Paul James]

I would suggest you read up about animal hydbridization.

I suggest to provide one single instance of evolution in the present that can be observed, examined, tested and replicated.

 

[Speedwell]

As I have said, true science involves direct observation, examination, testing and replication. Evolution has none of those things. It is a guess work attempt to determine the past by present evidence that does not clearly support it.

Do you Kiwis get CS! on the television down there?

 

[Paul James]

the bible is not a valid reference on this. It gets things clearly wrong. If it does say this, it is definitely wrong.

Show me anywhere where the Bible has definitely been proved wrong. It is one thing making a statement it is quite another thing being able to support it with absolute proof.

 

[Paul James]

Humans are just one modern form of ape.

No proof. Only artist's imaginary impressions.

 

[Paul James]

Do you Kiwis get CS! on the television down there?

What is CS? Obviously if I don't know what it is, we probably don't get it. I get sky TV. Is it a channel on it?

 

[Speedwell]

What is CS?

CSI stands for Crime Scene Investigators. It's a show about forensic investigation of crimes--determining the past by the examination of present evidence. It's been on TV here for years. Very popular.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I have said, true science involves direct observation, examination, testing and replication. Evolution has none of those things. It is a guess work attempt to determine the past by present evidence that does not clearly support it.

What is your source for that? Seriously you do not get to make up your own version of science. Science merely follows the scientific method. Here, follow this flow chart. Tell me in what part it tell us that "direction observation" is needed:

 

[Speedwell]

Show me anywhere where the Bible has definitely been proved wrong. It is one thing making a statement it is quite another thing being able to support it with absolute proof.

There was not a flood which covered the entire terrestrial globe in the 3rd millenium BC. That was conclusively shown to be wrong two centuries since.

 

[Paul James]

CSI stands for Crime Scene Investigators. It's a show about forensic investigation of crimes--determining the past by the examination of present evidence. It's been on TV here for years. Very popular.

Oh yes. It's on channel 71 on our Sky. I've watched a few of those. Really fascinating.