Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[OzSpen]

Did you honestly not understand what I was saying?

I did not know to what you referred. Is that OK to ask you for an explanation?

 

[bhsmte]

If you point out his failings he'll threaten to report you then start ignoring you. But he'll never produce any evidence that isn't bible verses.

Cognitive dissonance, can do that.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Warden,

This is a false accusation from you.

For evidence I have provided previously, see examples#1447 and #1450. I'm not going to go through this very lengthy thread to demonstrate that I've provided evidence over and over, but you and others reject it.

But you erect this straw man:

• 'Virtually every post....
• unsubstantiated and unevidenced...
• Appeals to emotion...
• My incredulity about ToE. Molecular biologist, Dr. Michael Denton, provides lots of evidence that caused him to write 368pp, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985). Thirty years after that publication the evolutionary crisis continues and he has documented it in, Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis (Seattle: Discovery Institute Press, 2016, 354pp).
  
• you just double down and act rude. That's flaming me.

View attachment 216983

Oz

Posts 1447 and 1450 are exactly the posts I'm talking about. They show your own incredulity because of the fact that you can't understand the difference between natural speciation and artificial manmade speciation ALONG with your own insipid attempt to try and compare evolution to the Holocaust. A BLATANT attempt at moving the goalpost and appeal to emotion that is used time and again by people who try and say that the theory of evolution is wrong, without understanding what evolution is about.
And also: using a book that was written by a proponent for intelligent design and flat-out rejected by ACTUAL scientists? Maybe try and use an ACTUAL scientific book about evolution next time.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Bungle,

Why are you gossiping about me to another poster? If you have an issue with me, please speak with me directly. I will not respond again o this kind of goading.

Oz

I tried that. You ran away in a huff.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I did not know to what you referred. Is that OK to ask you for an explanation?

... you're in denial about the substance, or rather the lack of substance, in your own posts but you can't see it.

 

[Speedwell]

Sugar cane: Genus Saccharum (iNaturalist)



Eucalyptus (gum tree): Genus Eucalyptus (iNaturalist)



Oz

No, those are the classifications dreamed up by evil evo Christ deniers. How do you know that sugar cane and gum trees don't belong to the same biblical kind?

 

[xianghua]

How do you know that sugar cane and gum trees don't belong to the same biblical kind?

can they interbreed?

 

[Speedwell]

can they interbreed?

No, but that just means they aren't the same species. But if you are a creationist you know that "kinds" can't be species because God watches evolution to make sure that "kinds" are maintained inviolate and we have observed speciation taking place, which God wouldn't have allowed if "kinds" were species. See?

At least that's the way I understand it. From an evolutionist point of view I wouldn't think that sugar cane could evolve into gum trees because evolution does not allow for evolution from any line of descent to another, aready existing line of descent.

 

[dmmesdale]

Posts 1447 and 1450 are exactly the posts I'm talking about. They show your own incredulity because of the fact that you can't understand the difference between natural speciation and artificial manmade speciation

It is all natural. A distinction without a difference.

ALONG with your own insipid attempt to try and compare evolution to the Holocaust.

That was an attempt by the Nazi's to extinct the Jews, also handicapped. A Darwin-inspired race war because the Jews were considered inferiors to the Germans.

''Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, race with race,” Darwin.

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”
---------------------
So you have two classes the civilized and the savages. Can you guess who are the civilized and who are the savages?

A BLATANT attempt at moving the goalpost and appeal to emotion that is used time and again by people who try and say that the theory of evolution is wrong,

Ideas have consequences and bad ideas have bad consequences. The above are all facts, not in dispute.

Darwin historian anti creationists

Peter Bowler: (09:00:36:23) … they hoped that they will be able to educate the various races of man kind in the arts of civilization but there was always this nagging problem of is it going to be possible. And one thing that’s characteristic of the general direction of European’s thought during the 19th century is there were increasingly harder line taken on that which we see reflected in Darwin himself.

That by the time he writes The Descent of Man in 1871 it’s pretty clear that he by that time shares the growing suspicion or conviction of many Europeans. The non white races simply do not have the capacity to be elevated properly into civilized human beings that they are mentally and morally at a more limited level. In a sense they are stuck at an early stage in the biological evolution of the human species.

(09:01:42:06) So their way of life may offer us a fossilised relic of what our own ancestors lived like in the distant prehistoric past. But now Darwin and many of his contemporaries are beginning to realise that what they needed to claim that they are biologically relics of the past. They are in fact equivalent to earlier stages in the ascent from the apes who have been preserved in isolated locations, preserved with those earlier levels of mental and moral development.

without understanding what evolution is about.

Well according to Darwin it is about inequality of races and the civilized extincting the savages. Race genocide. That is why they say National Socialism is applied biology.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It is all natural. A distinction without a difference. That was an attempt by the Nazi's to extinct the Jews, also handicapped. A Darwin-inspired race war because the Jews were considered inferiors to the Germans.

''Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, race with race,” Darwin.

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”
---------------------
So you have two classes the civilized and the savages. Can you guess who are the civilized and who are the savages?


Ideas have consequences and bad ideas have bad consequences. The above are all facts, not in dispute.

Darwin historian anti creationists

Peter Bowler: (09:00:36:23) … they hoped that they will be able to educate the various races of man kind in the arts of civilization but there was always this nagging problem of is it going to be possible. And one thing that’s characteristic of the general direction of European’s thought during the 19th century is there were increasingly harder line taken on that which we see reflected in Darwin himself.

That by the time he writes The Descent of Man in 1871 it’s pretty clear that he by that time shares the growing suspicion or conviction of many Europeans. The non white races simply do not have the capacity to be elevated properly into civilized human beings that they are mentally and morally at a more limited level. In a sense they are stuck at an early stage in the biological evolution of the human species.

(09:01:42:06) So their way of life may offer us a fossilised relic of what our own ancestors lived like in the distant prehistoric past. But now Darwin and many of his contemporaries are beginning to realise that what they needed to claim that they are biologically relics of the past. They are in fact equivalent to earlier stages in the ascent from the apes who have been preserved in isolated locations, preserved with those earlier levels of mental and moral development.
Well according to Darwin it is about inequality of races and the civilized extincting the savages. Race genocide.

All of this is just... so wrong. All of this is just hideously and incredibly wrong that I'm not even going to bother correcting you, especially since you have been corrected multiple times but you keep spouting the same crap over and over again.
This thread has now officially been Godwinned.

 

[xianghua]

No, but that just means they aren't the same species. But if you are a creationist you know that "kinds" can't be species because God watches evolution to make sure that "kinds" are maintained inviolate and we have observed speciation taking place, which God wouldn't have allowed if "kinds" were species. See?

At least that's the way I understand it. From an evolutionist point of view I wouldn't think that sugar cane could evolve into gum trees because evolution does not allow for evolution from any line of descent to another, aready existing line of descent.

im not sure i understand you. i will say that: there is no evidence that evolution of different creatures is true. therefore we dont need to believe in evolution. do you agree?

 

[Speedwell]

No, but that just means they aren't the same species. But if you are a creationist you know that "kinds" can't be species because God watches evolution to make sure that "kinds" are maintained inviolate and we have observed speciation taking place, which God wouldn't have allowed if "kinds" were species. See?

im not sure i understand you. i will say that: there is no evidence that evolution of different creatures is true. therefore we dont need to believe in evolution. do you agree?

What I am saying is this:
Creationists claim that "kinds" are immutable. Therefore species cannot be "kinds" because we have obsrved speciation taking place.

 

[xianghua]

What I am saying is this:
Creationists claim that "kinds" are immutable. Therefore species cannot be "kinds" because we have obsrved speciation taking place.

ok. are you saying that according to evolution two different genus cant interbreed because they are too different?

 

[dmmesdale]

All of this is just... so wrong. All of this is just hideously and incredibly wrong that I'm not even going to bother correcting you, especially since you have been corrected multiple times but you keep spouting the same crap over and over again.
This thread has now officially been Godwinned.

Well what part of the Darwin quotes are you not understanding?

 

[Speedwell]

ok. are you saying that according to evolution two different genus cant interbreed because they are too different?

"Genus" is singular. The plural of "genus" is "genera."

Your question makes no sense. Did you mean to as whether a species which is a member of one genus can interbreed with a species from a different genus? The answer to that is no. Species in general can't interbreed no matter what genera they belong to. By definition, that's what makes them different species.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well what part of the Darwin quotes are you not understanding?

No, I can understand it fine. It's just you who can't. Show me exactly where Darwin says "the white man MUST wipe out the other races".
And the definition of 'savage' as used in Victorian England is highly nuanced, since they called the Japanese and Chinese, cultures with a rich history in art, architecture and literature 'savages'.
Let alone that your first quote is an obvious misquote:
"Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, and race with race. Various checks are always in action, serving to keep down the numbers of each savage tribe,--such as periodical famines, nomadic habits and the consequent deaths of infants, prolonged suckling, wars, accidents, sickness, licentiousness, the stealing of women, infanticide, and especially lessened fertility.
If any one of these checks increases in power, even slightly, the tribe thus affected tends to decrease; and when of two adjoining tribes one becomes less numerous and less powerful than the other, the contest is soon settled by war, slaughter, cannibalism, slavery, and absorption. Even when a weaker tribe is not thus abruptly swept away, if it once begins to decrease, it generally goes on decreasing until it becomes extinct. (32. Gerland (ibid. s. 12) gives facts in support of this statement.)"
Disingenuous much?

 

[xianghua]

Your question makes no sense. Did you mean to as whether a species which is a member of one genus can interbreed with a species from a different genus? The answer to that is no. Species in general can't interbreed no matter what genera they belong to. By definition, that's what makes them different species.

so how you will explain this case?:

Wholphin - Wikipedia

 

[Speedwell]

so how you will explain this case?:

Wholphin - Wikipedia

Things like that happen--the dividing line between species is not a hard and fast one. But there is no reason to think on that account that dolphins will ever evolve into killer whales.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Been away for a while, come back and see the same 'arguments' against evolution.

And it is always... ALWAYS... 'arguments' against evolution.

NEVER arguments FOR creation/ID.

Analogies to human activity, bible verses, 'problems' with evolution - none of these, not one of them, is evidence FOR creation or ID.


It is almost as if creationists have admitted to themselves, subconsciously, that they cannot actually offer any positive supporting evidence FOR their mere beliefs, and are content to simply attack 'the other.' This is true, whether the creationist is a one-line snark master, or a verbose citation and quote bombing autodidact.

Looking for proof of a creation source [point] is almost foolish - unless the Creator actually comes to you.

The argument of whether we can provide proof of the Creator is like a brain cell making an argument for or against the existence of you.

With respect to the brain cell, you just exist, and have always existed. You "began" as a single source point, then "grew and expanded," and then eventually came to the homeostasis in which you exist. But, it is rumored some day that you will contract, and eventually die out - but not for a LOOOOOONG time (with respect to the brain cell.)

All philosophy is arguing a very real facet of existence itself. ID is what inherently follows.

 

[xianghua]

Things like that happen--the dividing line between species is not a hard and fast one. But there is no reason to think on that account that dolphins will ever evolve into killer whales.

but they are different genera. so how they can interbreed if by definition they are different species?