Evolution... Do we believe?

[Jonahdog]

A definition needs to be "always" to be useful.

Like a "kind" always refers to a group of organisms that share a common ancestor population.

Since the real world evidence points to every living thing having a common ancestor, every living thing is one kind. Not a very useful definition. So I'll assume that Stripe does not really mean that and lets try to flesh out what he does mean.

Stripe, yes or no, or you dont know,
1.was each kind represented on the Ark? In other words, did your god start over then?
2. Is there just one cat kind now existing?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Evolutionary theory says that there can be no universally-applicable definition of "species." Creationism requires that there be one.

Your nose is growing.

As I showed you, Darwin himself predicted that such a definition would be impossible, in The Origin of Species. Everyone saw that. There's really no point in you pretending that I didn't show you.

And of course, creationism predicts that God separately created "kinds" which have no overlap.

You're doing yourself no good by denying the obvious. This is a fatal problem for creationism. You'd be better off seeking a plausible explanation, than by denying the problem.

 

[6days]

Not a very useful definition.(Biblical "kind")

and

Evolutionary theory says that there can be no universally-applicable definition of "species."

Funny watching an atheist demanding definitions from the Bible, meanwhile a fellow evolutionist is attempting to defend the plasticity of definitions within evolutionism.

 

[Stripe]

Since the real world evidence points to every living thing having a common ancestor.

Were you going to share that evidence, or just pretend it exists?

Every living thing is one kind. Not a very useful definition.

On the contrary. It instantly delineates the two sides of the discussion in a way "species" can never do. Your side insists there must only be one kind; our side says there are many.

So I'll assume that Stripe does not really mean that and lets try to flesh out what he does mean.

Doesn't mean what?

Was each kind represented on the Ark?

Probably.

In other words, did your god start over then?

:AMR:

Is there just one cat kind now existing?

Probably not.

 

[Jonahdog]

Were you going to share that evidence, or just pretend it exists?

On the contrary. It instantly delineates the two sides of the discussion in a way "species" can never do. Your side insists there must only be one kind; our side says there are many.

Doesn't mean what?

Probably.
:AMR:
Probably not.

so you have "probably" as answers. Do you know of anyone, any scientist, trying to determine how many cat kinds there are now and/or how many there were on the Ark?

 

[Stripe]

so you have "probably" as answers.

:BRAVO:

Do you know of anyone, any scientist, trying to determine how many cat kinds there are now and/or how many there were on the Ark?

Sure.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Evolutionary theory says that there can be no universally-applicable definition of "species." Creationism requires that there be one.

As I showed you, Darwin himself predicted that such a definition would be impossible, in The Origin of Species. Everyone saw that. There's really no point in you pretending that I didn't show you.

And of course, creationism predicts that God separately created "kinds" which have no overlap.

You're doing yourself no good by denying the obvious. This is a fatal problem for creationism. You'd be better off seeking a plausible explanation, than by denying the problem.

Funny watching an atheist demanding definitions from the Bible,

Stipe claims to be a Christian. And if he's got a definition, he's not showing it to us.

meanwhile a fellow evolutionist is attempting to defend the plasticity of definitions within evolutionism.

The inablility of anyone to come up with a testable definition of "species" is a prediction of evolutionary theory.

It's one of the important differences between science and creationism.

 

[6days]

Barbarian observes:
Evolutionary theory says that there can be no universally-applicable definition of "species." Creationism requires that there be one.

Your nose is growing! Evolution in action!

 

[Jonahdog]

:BRAVO:

Sure.

goody,who might those scientists studying kinds be and can you give us actual citations so we can all be enlightened. Please provide the citations, thanks.

 

[The Barbarian]

Your nose is growing!

I don't think denial and screaming "liar" is going to help you at this point. There's no point in you denying what I showed you. Everyone saw it.

Do you think no one draws conclusions about your behavior?

 

[The Barbarian]

goody,who might those scientists studying kinds be and can you give us actual citations so we can all be enlightened. Please provide the citations, thanks.

They call themselves "baraminologists." From the Hebrew word for "kind." (or rather one of the Hebrew words for "kind."

Kurt Wise is one of them. After Remine's "discontinuity systematics" ran into a wall, Wise proposed baraminology, in a way to make a scientific description of YE beliefs:

Scientists who have preferred something other than a macroevolutionary framework recently have developed what they believe to be a more realistic systematics based upon the discontinuities or typology found in nature. This methodology appropriately has been termed discontinuity systematics (formally presented by Walter J. ReMine, 1990), or when combined with Biblical revelation, baraminology (a term introduced by Kurt P. Wise, 1990). Baraminology may be defined as a taxonomy based upon the created kinds (see Bartz, 1991; Frair, 1991; 1999; and Figure 2). The word “baramin” was conceived by Frank L. Marsh and first published in 1941; it is derived from the Hebrew verb bara, create and min, kind (also see Marsh, 1969; Williams, 1997).

Since classification underlies all biological investigations, it is quite significant that creationists now have an active focus on this topic. Substantial progress has been made since 1990, and baraminologists have developed their own terminology which at this time appears to be quite practical for those doing systematic research. The major purpose of baraminology is to determine which organisms share common ancestry.

Marsh employed the term baramin in an inclusive way for an entire group of known, unknown, and possibly inferred organisms sharing genetic relationship. But now the focus is more specific, and only those specimens which can be studied as living or extinct (including fossil) specimens may be included in the current four main baraminic groups. The terms employed as the four primary baraminic categories are holobaramin, monobaramin, apobaramin, and polybaramin.

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/37/37_2/baraminology.htm

Biggest stumbling blocks are genetics (which show all living things on Earth to be related, the relatedness matching genetic data), and transitional organisms that show different "baramin" to be connected.

Wise has admitted that transitionals are a particularly difficult challenge for YE:

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and[p. 219]
Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitionals

 

[Stripe]

Thanks.

You're welcome. :e4e:

 

[6days]

There's no point in you denying what I showed you. Everyone saw it.

Your nose is so long its getting droopy.
(Check the thread 'rapid adaptation'...that is the creationist model.)

 

[6days]

Biggest stumbling blocks are genetics (which show all living things on Earth to be related, the relatedness matching genetic data), and transitional organisms that show different "baramin" to be connected.

Genetics helps confirm the truth of God's Word. The evidence points to a common Creator of everything. Mutations rates, diversity of kinds, genetic burden and more also indicate God's Word to be truth...pointing to our young earth.

 

[Jonahdog]

You're welcome. :e4e:

Note that once again, Dr. Stripey does not provide any specific information. Somehow I knew that would be his response. So predictable, so sad, so lacking in any intellectual honesty.

 

[Jonahdog]

Genetics helps confirm the truth of God's Word. The evidence points to a common Creator of everything. Mutations rates, diversity of kinds, genetic burden and more also indicate God's Word to be truth...pointing to our young earth.

No, it does not. But I understand your need. Your theology is frightening.

 

[6days]

No, it does not. But I understand your need. Your theology is frightening.

Of course genetics helps confirm the truth of God's Word.
Jeffrey Tompkins PhD "Yet another study, this one published in the journal Nature, ( exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants) accessed even more extensive data and unintentionally confirmed the recent human history described in Genesis."

Dr. Robert Carter... Human genetics confirms the Bible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwRqlFzZ0cU

Dr. Georgia Purdom (molecular biology) "One of the most compelling genetic evidences for an original human couple created by God is mitochondrial DNA research done by creation geneticist, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson....He clearly shows that the common human female ancestor of us all (biblical Eve) lived within the biblical timeframe of several thousand years ago.”

Cornell geneticist, Dr. John Sanford "An axiomatic statement often repeated by biologists is: “Nothing makes sense in biology, except in the light of evolution”. However, nothing could be further from the truth! I believe that apart from ideology, the truth is exactly the opposite: “Nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of design”.

In the beginning, God created...

 

[Jonahdog]

Of course genetics helps confirm the truth of God's Word.
Jeffrey Tompkins PhD "Yet another study, this one published in the journal Nature, ( exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants) accessed even more extensive data and unintentionally confirmed the recent human history described in Genesis."

Dr. Robert Carter... Human genetics confirms the Bible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwRqlFzZ0cU

Dr. Georgia Purdom (molecular biology) "One of the most compelling genetic evidences for an original human couple created by God is mitochondrial DNA research done by creation geneticist, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson....He clearly shows that the common human female ancestor of us all (biblical Eve) lived within the biblical timeframe of several thousand years ago.”

Cornell geneticist, Dr. John Sanford "An axiomatic statement often repeated by biologists is: “Nothing makes sense in biology, except in the light of evolution”. However, nothing could be further from the truth! I believe that apart from ideology, the truth is exactly the opposite: “Nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of design”.

In the beginning, God created...

Since Purdom needs to conform to the AiG statement of faith before she even looks at science, her statements start from zero credibility and go down from there. I am not familiar with the others.
If however you wish to play "Whoever has more quotemines from scientists that support my position wins", guess what----your side does not win.
You would be better served understanding the real world than needing to support your theology. Yes, the real world is not as comforting as your theology (you get to go to heaven and I get to go to hell) but it is what exists, as messy and chaotic as it is.
As someone with a fair amount of education and a good portion of it based on both science and religion (mostly Christianity) I have really come to feel sorry for many of the fundamentalists here, you are so blinded by your fear of offending your deity. Delusional and frightening to be you.

 

[6days]

If however you wish to play "Whoever has more quotemines from scientists that support my position wins", guess what----your side does not win.

Fortunately for us... Science is not about majority opinion...as evolutionists like to think.
(Usually, its the dead fish who go with the flow)
Science is about knowledge... seeking truth, even if that path leads to a creator God

Genetics DOES help confirm the truth found in God's Word.

 

[Caino]

No, it does not. But I understand your need. Your theology is frightening.

It should be noted that the term "Gods Word" refers to the Living spiritual reality that believers of all walks and religions find in the high consciousness of there most idealistic, moral and loving ideals. To these people God is a Living Love subjectively understood in the heart of the believer.

But then comes the institution of various religions, the presumed authority of the leaders and the writings of the priest class, creed formation, doctrine formation and the worst of all tyrants that enslave men, scripture worship. 6days once honestly (and with notable character) conceded that if the Bible said the moon was made of cheese then he would have to believe it. Therefore, 6days is not allowed by his religion to acknowledge the reality of an old earth that has been the host of ages upon ages of evolution as simply preserved in the archeological record. He must default to the story of the Hebrew priest class written for the child like mind of the bronze age audience. These people confuse faith in God with faith in the writings of old men living in an entirely different age.

I believe in and trust Jesus, I do NOT believe in nor trust the grossly exaggerated, self important writings of the people who conspired to kill Jesus. Old earth evolution has always been obvious to me.