What do Evolutionists offer

[Hnefi]

Which is why mythology like Evolution doesn't, and can't, define,
or be, nature. And why nature isn't, and never was, Evolution

Whoever claimed that evolution was synonomous with nature? You're presenting a strawman.

To the contrary: a triangle has 3 sides and 3 angles regardless whether a mathematician defines it so or not.

I think you need to rethink that statement. Begin by considering why a triangle has three sides.

Likewise is math intelligently designed, and evident in nature, even before Adam was created

Math is just a tool made by man to describe, among other things, reality. But what does that have to do with evolution?

The law of life is that species don't and can't become different species. Rather, life reproduces only what it is.

"The law of life"? Never heard of that. What I have heard of, though, is that speciation has been observed - both in the wild and in the lab. If there is a "law" to prevent speciation from happening, it seems it isn't enforced. Also, did you read my post earlier in this thread?

This is the same with God's life. God became man to make man God.

I'm no bible scholar, but is that really supported by christian holy texts? The notion of man becoming god sounds awfully heretical, though I may be wrong.

If by "not stay the same" and "change" you mean that averages within populations cycles, such as age, weight, length of life, immunities, etc, that's true.
If by "not stay the same" and "change" you mean that species change into different or new species: that's a theory (and goofy one at that). Neither fact nor even close to being established. Much less well-established

Since you demonstrate that you don't even know what the word "theory" means in science, how can you consider yourself competent to dismiss such a well-established one even when the evidence is laid out right in front of you? Even Answers in Genesis acknowledges that speciation occurs (about halfway down the linked page).

Evolution's not fact, fact's not theory, and theory's not fact. Though theories should include facts

Evolution is both fact and theory. The process of evolution is a fact that's incorporated into the the theory of evolution, which explains the facts.

 

[Melethiel]

I'm no bible scholar, but is that really supported by christian holy texts? The notion of man becoming god sounds awfully heretical, though I may be wrong.

That's actually a nearly direct quote from St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation. The statement needs to be properly qualified though, and there's lots of fine theological points surrounding that statement.

 

[gluadys]

The answer was, is, and always will be: they are

How do you know? Are all "cats" the same species? You noted that "cat" can refer to a group of species.

Why can "cichlid" not also refer to a group of species?

"Kind" = "species," as i and God am using them

Interesting. That was, in fact, the original understanding of "kind". But most creationists abandoned it when it became irrefutable that speciation occurs.

Most modern creationists use "kind" to refer to a group of species descended from a common ancestor.

IOW, as mark kennedy suggests, most of today's creationists accept the fact of evolution. They only differ from scientists in that they do not accept the historical scope of evolution or (in the case of young-earth creationists) the scientific time-frame.

It is rare to see a creationist of the old pre-Darwinian school today.

The fact that they can reproduce reproductive offspring, like Genesis says

And if we cannot tell whether they can reproduce successfully, do we have a right to assume that they can?

Should we not at least provisionally consider that they may be separate species?

The law of life is that species don't and can't become different species.

Your argument is contradicted by the facts of life. A law of life that is contradicted by the facts of life is clearly a human error which needs to be corrected in light of factual information.

If by "not stay the same" and "change" you mean that averages within populations cycles, such as age, weight, length of life, immunities, etc, that's true.

OK. Next question. By what mechanisms do these averages change?

And another: might "ability to reproduce successfully" with another group of the population be a characteristic which can change in the same way as averages of height, immunities, etc. do? Or even "preferring one type of mate over another"?

 

[Mick116]

Speciation is difficult to observe because it usually takes place over many thousands of years. Some of the most direct observations have involved finches, cichlid fish (as cited by Mallon - thanks for that btw ), and fruit flies (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation, and the image below).

Unfortunately, such observations necessarily involve finches producing finches and fruit flies producing fruit flies. More "convincing" examples of evolutionary change necessarily require observation over many millions of years, which is simply not possible. The closest we can come is observing "snapshots" of life's history on this planet, in the form of fossil remains. Unfortunately, surviving fossils represent only the smallest fraction of creatures that have ever lived.

On the other hand, special creationists cannot provide any directly observable evidence for instantaneous creation of species, because creation is said to have occurred many thousands of years ago. If only special creation were observable somewhere in nature, our debates would end; on the contrary, I am made of the same "stuff" as the rest of creation, and my physical body, rather than evidence of creation ex nilo, is evidence of genetic resources received from my parents, and energy resources received (indirectly) from the sun.

I challenge someone to provide one (just one!) observation of special creation in nature.

As long as special creation remains an unproven hypothesis, the debate shall go on. So I ask the reciprocal question, "what do special creationists have to offer?"

P.S. Here's the image I referred to earlier:

 

[InTheCloud]

This tread seems to be going in the Crevo debate area.

 

[Markus6]

"They cannot be convinced to mate/lack of natural interbreeding."
​

This sounds like a eugenicist or racist Darwinist's former "proof" that some blacks and whites, or maybe some Shia and Sunnis, are "different species."
​

​

​

So do you think it was racism or religious differences that prevented these fish from mating?