Evolution... Do we believe?

[6days]

I think there is currently some debate on whether YECs are a separate species? :think:

Yes..... Its true. Our halo's set us apart. :ha: However, interbreeding does take place with non-haloists... They do produce fertile offspring.

Alwight... I assume by your joking 'reply' that you agree ... there is some debate amongst evolutionists over words such as 'species'.

 

[Jose Fly]

its not up to us to resolve evolutionists internal inconsistencies.

Um, no one in evolutionary biology cares what you do or don't do. Creationism is 100% scientifically irrelevant.

We note that you evolutionists can't even agree on definitions to words such as speciation.

It's the evolution of a new species.

The question is however, are populations evolving, speciation, and natural selection parts of the "Biblical model of creation"? Stripe says they aren't, you say they are.

 

[Stripe]

It's not up to me to resolve creationists' internal inconsistencies.

Then feel free to butt out. :up:

Therefore whether populations evolving, speciation, and natural selection are part of the "Biblical model of creation" isn't a settled issue among creationists. And that's just hilarious.

Great. When you've got something useful to contribute, let us know. :up:

Yep. Plenty of creationists here believe in a stationary earth.

Names. :up:

 

[alwight]

Yes..... Its true. Our halo's set us apart. :ha: However, interbreeding does take place with non-haloists... They do produce fertile offspring.

Alwight... I assume by your joking 'reply' that you agree ... there is some debate amongst evolutionists over words such as 'species'.

Darwinian evolution rather requires that there is some blurring around the edges 6days else speciation wouldn't happen.
But YECs like Neanderthals will probably only be a dead end unless given a protected species status. lain:

 

[Stripe]

Darwinian evolution ... requires that there is some blurring around the edges ... else speciation wouldn't happen.

Question-begging nonsense. You cannot justify the use of a non-definition because your theory predicts it should exist.

YECs like Neanderthals will probably only be a dead end unless given a protected species status.

Given that they have been persecuted for 2,000 years at least, I doubt the belief is going anywhere fast.

And it is evolutionism that is protected; just try questioning it in a school or university.

 

[The Barbarian]

Question-begging nonsense. You cannot justify the use of a non-definition because your theory predicts it should exist.

As you learned earlier, evolutionary theory predicts that there should be no hard definition of "species.' Darwin himself pointed this out. It is a major flaw in creationism, which predicts well-defined taxa.

That was Kurt Wise's point. It's a serious problem for creationists, one that has never been satisfactorily answered.

 

[alwight]

Question-begging nonsense. You cannot justify the use of a non-definition because your theory predicts it should exist.

Only your YEC based misinterpretation is nonsense Stripe .
It may have been a somewhat circular argument if it wasn't for the fact that the margins between what may be considered as different species being indistinct is actually very well evidenced in say "Ring Species".

Given that they have been persecuted for 2,000 years at least, I doubt the belief is going anywhere fast.

And it is evolutionism that is protected; just try questioning it in a school or university.

Apparently science teachers and university professors typically prefer to teach and lecture science based in fact and evidence rather than adherence to myths and legends from ancient scripture, I suggest you get over it or get with it. :up:

 

[Stripe]

Only your YEC based misinterpretation is nonsense Stripe.

Adding tu quoque to your list of irrational arguments doesn't help you.

It may have been a somewhat circular argument if it wasn't for the fact that the margins between what may be considered as different species being indistinct is actually very well evidenced in say "Ring Species".

:darwinsm:

We are under no compulsion to agree that there is any such thing as a "species" until you clearly define it. And that you demand we have to accept evolutionism to justify leaving "species" undefined shows how utterly bankrupt your views are.

Apparently science teachers and university professors typically prefer to teach and lecture science based in fact and evidence rather than adherence to myths and legends from ancient scripture, I suggest you get over it or get with it. :up:

Meanwhile, my point stands. Evolutionism is protected, while YECs have been persecuted for 2,000 years. Your notion that creationism will soon be dead is utterly laughable.

 

[alwight]

Adding tu quoque to your list of irrational arguments doesn't help you.

Since I have concluded that whatever science may offer will simply be considered as trumped by your well established YEC adherence to a literal Genesis (however rigorous and factually supported the science), then my expressed opinion here is imo more than supported by your past record. A new thread doesn't give you a clean slate Stripe. :nono:

:darwinsm:

We are under no compulsion to agree that there is any such thing as a "species" until you clearly define it. And that you demand we have to accept evolutionism to justify leaving "species" undefined shows how utterly bankrupt your views are.

The royal "we" was it?
King of the fundies perhaps Stripe? :chuckle:
Ad Hominem? surely not...

I doubt that a "species" could ever be reasonably defined for your satisfaction Stripe because nothing must ever be allowed to detract from the YEC approved "Kinds" of course, but perhaps you can help sort that out with a nice clear and succinct YEC definition of "Kinds"?

Meanwhile, my point stands. Evolutionism is protected, while YECs have been persecuted for 2,000 years. Your notion that creationism will soon be dead is utterly laughable.

While YECism otoh is protected by ignorance, blind faith and misinformation you might well be right.lain:

 

[Stripe]

Since I have concluded that whatever science may offer will simply be considered as trumped by your well established YEC adherence to a literal Genesis (however rigorous and factually supported the science), then my expressed opinion here is imo more than supported by your past record. A new thread doesn't give you a clean slate Stripe.

Great. When you're ready to speak science and evidence, let us know. However, if you're just going to emote, that's gotten boring real quick. :yawn:

I doubt that a "species" could ever be reasonably defined for your satisfaction Stripe because nothing must ever be allowed to detract from the YEC approved "Kinds" of course, but perhaps you can help sort that out with a nice clear and succinct YEC definition of "Kinds"?

Easy. A kind is all the organisms descended from a common ancestor population.

So, what is a species?

 

[alwight]

Easy. A kind is all the organisms descended from a common ancestor population.

So, what is a species?

Hold on, you haven't defined "Kinds" at all, you've simply baldly asserted that more modern creatures shared a particular common "Kind". :AMR:

 

[6days]

As*you learned earlier, evolutionary theory predicts that there should be no hard definition of "species.' Darwin himself pointed this out. It is a major flaw in creationism, which predicts well-defined taxa.

Once again ... you demonstrate lack of knowledge of the Bible, then create a strawman to defend your belief system. As has been pointed out to you numerous times the biblical model is rapid adaptation. It is entirely consistent with the biblical model that we see numerous groups of very similar animals, some which have lost the ability to interbreed.*

'Species' is simply a term used by Biblical creationist*Carolus Linnaeus to define a group that can interbreed producing fertile offspring. We sometimes see breeding between organisms labelled as separate species (different finches as example). *But finches can't breed with cats..... humans can't breed with chimps. In Genesis 1, God tells us ten times that He created things after their kind.*

 

[Stripe]

Hold on, you haven't defined "Kinds" at all, you've simply baldly asserted that more modern creatures shared a particular common "Kind". :AMR:

Nope. Try reading again. If you do not know what any of those big words means, feel free to ask. :thumb:

Meanwhile, what is a species?

 

[alwight]

Nope. Try reading again. If you do not know what any of those big words means, feel free to ask. :thumb:

I win then, by Stripe insult to my intelligence. :cigar:

Meanwhile, what is a species?

Easy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

 

[Stripe]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

Great, so "differing measures are often used."

How are we supposed to have a discussion when you do not know what you are talking about?

 

[alwight]

Great, so "differing measures are often used."

How are we supposed to have a discussion when you do not know what you are talking about?

Like you can define a "Kind"?

 

[Stripe]

Like you can define a "Kind"?

A kind is all the organisms descended from a common ancestor population. That means we can take today's population of people and in 10 years say that all of the descendants produced by it are of the same kind.

See how easy it is to define something?

Your turn. :up:

 

[alwight]

A kind is all the organisms descended from a common ancestor population. That means we can take today's population of people and in 10 years say that all of the descendants produced by it are of the same kind.

See how easy it is to define something?

Your turn. :up:

OK so there were original "Kinds" how about you now do what I asked and define them?
Doggy Kind, Kitty Kind, Monkey Kind isn't really good enough btw.

 

[Stripe]

How about you now do what I asked and define them?

Evolutionists hate reading.

 

[alwight]

Evolutionists hate reading.

I'm not the one who is claiming that there is always a clear distinction, that in fact it's often blurred around the edges, you seem to be the one who thinks that original "kinds" convenienntly don't need any definition at all.

:wave: