Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[Speedwell]

It’s real per God’s Word in the Genesis account. “After his/their kind” is used several times.

In a relative way. There is no evidence, biblical or otherwise, that the use of the term was intended to establish an immutable divine taxonomy. The traditional interpretation has been that it was an expression of the orderliness of nature--figs don't grow on olive trees nor cows give birth to sheep, that sort of thing. There is, indeed, a definite parallel to the Darwinian principle of reproductive similarity.

 

[pitabread]

It’s real per God’s Word in the Genesis account. “After his/their kind” is used several times.

The use of which is completely vague with respect to actual biology.

If anyone wants to argue that "kind" is real thing with respect to real organisms, then they need to demonstrate so with respect to real biology. Quoting the Bible doesn't help here.

 

[pitabread]

There is no evidence, biblical or otherwise, that the use of the term was intended to establish an immutable divine taxonomy.

Exactly. Which makes it all the more relevant that nobody has ever come up with either a demonstrable "kind barrier" in nature, nor a rigorous taxonomic system based on it.

 

[Speedwell]

The use of which is completely vague with respect to actual biology.

If anyone wants to argue that "kind" is real thing with respect to real organisms, then they need to demonstrate so with respect to real biology. Quoting the Bible doesn't help here.

However, it is interesting to notice that in the Genesis story, God specifically delegated to Adam, to mankind, the task of creating the biological taxa. Gen 2:20

 

[inquiring mind]

The use of which is completely vague with respect to actual biology.

If anyone wants to argue that "kind" is real thing with respect to real organisms, then they need to demonstrate so with respect to real biology. Quoting the Bible doesn't help here.

And I was just about to complement Speedwell for not throwing the “kitchen sink” at my reference to the Bible.

 

[DogmaHunter]

off course i talking about population and not about individual. so according to evolution a population of cats can evolve into something that isnt a cat after millions of years. right?

For the bazzilionth time: no.

Speciation is a vertical proces, not a horizontal one.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No I'm not.

There's, the empty response your empty claim that showed no merit whatsoever. Just words that get us nowhere.

It's been explained many a time how you are scientifically illiterate.
This entire conversation being a prime example, continously asking for "proof" of theories and pretending that really good theories somehow become facts.

 

[Astrophile]

like this one:

designed or not? (image from Unidentified flying object - Wikipedia ).

Yes, it is designed, and I'm pretty sure that it was designed by human beings and made in a terrestrial factory. In other words, the picture is a fake; it shows an object (perhaps something like a lampshade) thrown into the air, not an extra-terrestrial spacecraft.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No Sarah, this is our reality and hybridwolves dna are now called the real wolf dna.

A claim I asked for a source for. Please provide a source in your next response, or I will entirely ignore it.

Hybridwolves is manmade and let out in the wild and run on the streets of our villages and cities like straydogs and kill cats and dogs and mink snd sheep but are like holy cows not afraid of people and illegal to shoot, it is only a matter of time until they get a taste for kids since they run to schoolyards and skiinghills too.

Lol, no. If someone wanted to kill off a bunch of kids and stray animals, there are far more effective ways of doing it. Freaking "accidentally" leaking poison into the water supply would be so much more efficient, would take less time to orchestrate, and would be easier to cover up. Plus, it's not illegal to kill pretty much any animal in self defense. People aren't going to jail for killing a bull elephant that was attacking them unprovoked.

These are hungry as wolves but rather take easier prays or get fed by people but the loners come to peoples yards and I say if You have a dog You should care for it but natures law says You can eat what You kill but wolves kill for fun and does not even eat it and that is why we strongly dislike having our pets killed by these animals that hunt all over the year, it is less moosecalves too.

If you are going to make claims, you better have sources to back them up.

We were fine without the hybrids. We do not like to have our kids eaten by real 100% wolves either thank You very much. The reason they got extinct in our country was that they killed 77 kids and some women according to witnesses in churchbooks if one goes back to 1700-1800 century.

From my understanding, wolves are generally hunted because they like to prey on livestock. It's comparatively rare for wolves to attack humans. Plus, we are way better at killing them than they are at killing us.

Also, only 77 kids killed within 100 years? Freaking humans kill more children than that. Heck, this makes these wolves you are so concerned about less deadly to humans than VENDING MACHINES, which kill about 2 people every year.

I grew up near the forest and I have met many animals face to face including this wolfhybrid on the street actually outside the store and it was probably not hungry this time so both me and my baby were lucky.

Pfft, there are so many dog breeds that look like wolves, so how do you even know it wasn't just a husky or something? Wolves do not lust after human flesh like an alcoholic lusts after booze, but you are making it sound like you think humans are the prey of choice for wolves/wolf-dog hybrids, and we aren't. Especially not adults.

 

[Kenny'sID]

It's been explained many a time how you are scientifically illiterate.
This entire conversation being a prime example, continously asking for "proof" of theories and pretending that really good theories somehow become facts.

Already took the time to prove you were lying, as you showed your scientific literacy to be very lacking, at which point you would simply make things up.....I see you're still doing that.

 

[pitabread]

then remove the word faith form the comment, and comment on what's left. Faith had little to do with my point.

I'm not going to start post-hoc editing of your own comments in an effort to guess at their meaning.

As for the rest of your prior comment, it was just a laundry list of reasons to not look at the material you've been presented. So again, I'm not sure what you're expecting to get out of any of this.

 

[Kenny'sID]

List?

You said

It's like a guy standing across a river who keeps asking people to throw him a rope, but then every time someone does so, the guy refuses to reach out his hand to catch it. Then he turns around a complains that nobody can throw him a rope.

And I answered

One problem yours is not a real rope, it's a pretend one, one imagined, conjecture, an assumed rope, or something I'm certainly not going to put my faith in....huge difference.

I just don't see how your replies make sense to out conversation.

You've been given material plenty of times, but you always seem to reject it out-of-hand. So I'm not sure what you're expecting exactly.

I've seen the material, and I've seen some of you lie through your teeth, or your claims fall so far apart when questioned, if they were not lies, they might as well have been.

You seem to think your "material" is 100% and if it doesn't convince someone, it's their fault, automatically. You can't lose with that silly, unrealistic attitude. "Here it is, if you don't buy it, I'll throw my nose up in the air and leave you in your ignorance, because there is just no possibility evolution can be wrong".

You do realize people see through the confidence, or hey, maybe some of youi actually believe it. they know that you know perfectly well a large part of your theories are bases on assumption. Sorry, but you just can't hide those facts from everyone.

But lets clear it up right now, give me material that proves evolution, and if I reject it, I'll tell you why. That is, the material you just mentioned/claimed you have put out there already.

Oh, and to save the embarrassment, either don't list it, or tell us ahead of time if any of your proposed material is obtained through conjecture, assumption, or anything else that might make it not actually material at all. You do that and your only going to make your case that much harder to believe.

For examples of that, go back on this thread and see where Speedy at least attempted to prove evolution and see what happened...just trying to save you some trouble. Also, if you fall flat of your face, don't blame me/us, we already told you, you have nothing.

That should about cover the particulars for the challenge.

 

[Speedwell]

List?



I've seen the material, and I've seen some of you lie through your teeth, or your claims fall so far apart when questioned, if they were not lies, they might as well have been.

What do you think the motivation for a lie might be?

 

[Kenny'sID]

What do you think the motivation for a lie might be?

Why do you ask?

 

[Speedwell]

Why do you ask?

I just wondered why you would conclude that any of us were lying to you. What would be the point?

 

[Shemjaza]

true. but there is a difference between a species and a family for instance. a new species is still basically the same creature. so we may get a new species of a cat, but its still be a cat and not something else.

That isn't a change that happens on a micro scale. Every individual change of species is only from one very similar species to another.

Using a variety of animal family names is for convenor and clarity, not a magic, impossible barrier.

There are no examples of proposed speciation on the scale of modern examples of different families. At the point of the split they were much more similar.

actually there is. for instance: if we will have a self replicating molecule, it will not evolve stepwise into a walking robot for instance. since there are no small steps into a robot.

So you say.

You have an assertion based on something that doesn't exist. You have no evidence.

You can make up stories about magical animal cars and robots that can breed and pass on genes... but they are just stories and as useless as an X-Man comic as evidence of your belief.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I just wondered why you would conclude that any of us were lying to you. What would be the point?

I think my accusatory post is on PG 28/long post.

Why? My guess is to convince us of something that isn't true, same reason most lie, and then when you/they, whoever says, "we don't care if you believe it true or not" then I'd have to ask you why are you debating it?....hope that covers it all anyway so we don't have to go through it again.

 

[Ophiolite]

I think my accusatory post is on PG 28/long post.

Why? My guess is to convince us of something that isn't true, same reason most lie, and then when you/they, whoever says, "we don't care if you believe it true or not" then I'd have to ask you why are you debating it?....hope that covers it all anyway so we don't have to go through it again.

Why would we wish to convince you of something that isn't true. Specifically, if we stipulate that evolution is not true, what would be the motivation for scientists, non-scientists, Christians and non-Christians to lie about it, claiming that it was?

 

[Speedwell]

I think my accusatory post is on PG 28/long post.

Why? My guess is to convince us of something that isn't true, same reason most lie, and then when you/they, whoever says, "we don't care if you believe it true or not" then I'd have to ask you why are you debating it?....hope that covers it all anyway so we don't have to go through it again.

In fact, we have done little or no debating with you about whether the theory of evolution is true or not. Most of our effort has been taken up trying to explain to you what the theory of evolution claims, not whether those claims are true--terms, definitions, etc.--as well as how the scientific method works. Is that that what you think we are lying to you about?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Why would we wish to convince you of something that isn't true. Specifically, if we stipulate that evolution is not true, what would be the motivation for scientists, non-scientists, Christians and non-Christians to lie about it, claiming that it was?

In fact, we have done little or no debating with you about whether the theory of evolution is true or not. Most of our effort has been taken up trying to explain to you what the theory of evolution claims, not whether those claims are true--terms, definitions, etc.--as well as how the scientific method works. Is that that what you think we are lying to you about?

I don't think either of you are paying attention. I showed you were I was lied to, who did it, and made great effort to prove it. Right or wrong, I gave you may guess as to why, so if you aren't satisfied with the answer, you tell me.

See, your, "We have no reason to lie" isn't going to cut it because there were lies, meaning there was a reason... let us know when you figure out why.