Jump to content


Photo

There's Probably No God...


  • Please log in to reply
113 replies to this topic

#81 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 05 December 2008 - 01:19 PM

Evolution happens, you can observe it.  The question scientists are trying to answer is how the effect happens.

That's what the argument is over.  The way scientists explain the diversity of species is the gradual divergence of an existing replicating life form.  The way creationists explain it is that their God makes all the different creatures we find.

The argument is about which one of these explanations makes the best predictions and which best explains the effects we see.

View Post


But to the extent that science claims that it does is not observable, and never will be. Changes within a kind (micro-evolution or speciation) do not break any creation laws.

Ever wonder why most evolution films are 90% animated? It's because 90% of the claimed process is not observable. Which means evolution is only provable in a virtual world. Which also means it is not testable or retestable in a lab.

Evolutionists dig up bones, make up stories. Then make videos and animate those same bones into life. Then make up more stories to create a story-line so that the animated bones now have something to do.

This is how these fish bones swam. This is what these fish bones ate. This is how the bone survived, and this is how they died.

Imagination does not equal real reality. And created virtual reality does not make a new reality. I work with flash animation from time to time. I know what it takes to make animation. If you observe something then you have a guidline to demonstrate what you observed. If you observe nothing, then you have to use total imagination on how something works.

So did the animators of evolution videos observe the things they animated? No? Then total imagination had to be used according to what the evolutionists told them. Who by the way did not observe anything either.

#82 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 05 December 2008 - 02:11 PM

I wonder how much genetic and fossil evidence they had when they stoned Steven to death in the book of Acts.....HMMMMM.

#83 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 05 December 2008 - 02:48 PM

But to the extent that science claims that it does is not observable, and never will be. Changes within a kind (micro-evolution or speciation) do not break any creation laws.

View Post


They don't break any of the rules of evolution, we agree there. And it still doesn't break the rules if you start with a primitive enough organism.

Ever wonder why most evolution films are 90% animated? It's because 90% of the claimed process is not observable. Which means evolution is only provable in a virtual world. Which also means it is not testable or retestable in a lab.

View Post


You're right, we can't see velocoraptors running around. It would be cool if we could, but we can't. We have the bones though, and fossilised eggs. We know that there was some creature that had a skeleton like that and we also know it probably had parents too.

Evolutionists dig up bones, make up stories. Then make videos and animate those same bones into life. Then make up more stories to create a story-line so that the animated bones now have something to do.

This is how these fish bones swam. This is what these fish bones ate. This is how the bone survived, and this is how they died.

Imagination does not equal real reality. And created virtual reality does not make a new reality. I work with flash animation from time to time. I know what it takes to make animation. If you observe something then you have a guidline to demonstrate what you observed. If you observe nothing, then you have to use total imagination on how something works.

So did the animators of evolution videos observe the things they animated? No? Then total imagination had to be used according to what the evolutionists told them. Who by the way did not observe anything either.

View Post


The evidence to be found in museums and published research isn't imaginary. They are based on solid evidence that you can hold in your hand.

We can tell from the bones of a fish skeleton the most likely way it swam. We can deduce this by looking at modern fish with a similar structure and the freedom of movement given the arrangement of bones within the fossil.

#84 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 05 December 2008 - 03:45 PM

But to the extent that science claims that it does is not observable, and never will be. Changes within a kind (micro-evolution or speciation) do not break any creation laws.

Ever wonder why most evolution films are 90% animated? It's because 90% of the claimed process is not observable. Which means evolution is only provable in a virtual world. Which also means it is not testable or retestable in a lab.

Evolutionists dig up bones, make up stories. Then make videos and animate those same bones into life. Then make up more stories to create a story-line so that the animated bones now have something to do.

This is how these fish bones swam. This is what these fish bones ate. This is how the bone survived, and this is how they died.

Imagination does not equal real reality. And created virtual reality does not make a new reality. I work with flash animation from time to time. I know what it takes to make animation. If you observe something then you have a guidline to demonstrate what you observed. If you observe nothing, then you have to use total imagination on how something works.

So did the animators of evolution videos observe the things they animated? No? Then total imagination had to be used according to what the evolutionists told them. Who by the way did not observe anything either.

View Post



So you agree with Ken Hamm. You think if someone starts telling you what they think happened in the past, based upon evidence they have studied in the present, you should loudly ask them (repeat after me, boys and girls) "Were you there?"

I would love to see defense lawyers use this tactic in a court of law more often, myself. The prosecutor carefully lays out his evidence, questions the forensics team, and builds a case to point out who perpetrated a murder or rape or burglary. Then the defense attorney could simply stand up and say, "You've made up quite a fairy tale for us, but I have one question for you: Were you there? The defense rests."

#85 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 05 December 2008 - 03:55 PM

So you agree with Ken Hamm.  You think if someone starts telling you what they think happened in the past, based upon evidence they have studied in the present, you should loudly ask them (repeat after me, boys and girls) "Were you there?"

I would love to see defense lawyers use this tactic in a court of law more often, myself.  The prosecutor carefully lays out his evidence, questions the forensics team, and builds a case to point out who perpetrated a murder or rape or burglary.  Then the defense attorney could simply stand up and say, "You've made up quite a fairy tale for us, but I have one question for you: Were you there?  The defense rests."

View Post


I happen to disagree with Ham on several issues as well as AIG. And yes I will ask were you there when someone starts acting like they were and calls or implies that everyone else is lying.

Only absolute truth makes an absolute liar. And I have seen no theory become absolute. So to use one to imply that someone is lying means that don't even understand what a theory is. And that it has to remain falsifiable. And that is where so many evolutionists make a mistake. They call their beloved theory a true fact which is implying an absolute. Which makes everyone else a liar, and the theory unfalsifiable.

Pushing an idea or theory to a level they do not belong or cannot maintain causes this problem. And therefore the attitudes often brought up in these types of debates.

#86 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 05 December 2008 - 04:26 PM

The prosecutor carefully lays out his evidence, questions the forensics team, and builds a case to point out who perpetrated a murder or rape or burglary. Then the defense attorney could simply stand up and say, "You've made up quite a fairy tale for us, but I have one question for you: Were you there? The defense rests."


Exactly.Thousands of feet of geolgic formations devoid of bioturbation,evidence of erosion,or evolution.

When determining evidence you actualy look at the evidence.

thanks.

#87 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 05 December 2008 - 07:02 PM

I happen to disagree with Ham on several issues as well as AIG. And yes I will ask were you there when someone starts acting like they were and calls or implies that everyone else is lying.

Only absolute truth makes an absolute liar. And I have seen no theory become absolute. So to use one to imply that someone is lying means that don't even understand what a theory is. And that it has to remain falsifiable. And that is where so many evolutionists make a mistake. They call their beloved theory a true fact which is implying an absolute. Which makes everyone else a liar, and the theory unfalsifiable.

Pushing an idea or theory to a level they do not belong or cannot maintain causes this problem. And therefore the attitudes often brought up in these types of debates.

View Post


The confusion arises with the word "theory."

You can use the word to mean a sort of guess, a haphazard, shooting-in-the-dark hypothesis.

But scientific theories are definitely not these sorts of "guesses." Have you ever heard of Einstein's theory of relativity? Would you say e=mc2 is a haphazard hypothesis?

And you're right, the theory of evolution is theoretically falsifiable. Unfortunately for the creationist, as scientists around the world make more and more discoveries in many different fields, the evidence keeps stacking up in favor of evolution.

#88 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 05 December 2008 - 10:09 PM

The confusion arises with the word "theory."

You can use the word to mean a sort of guess, a haphazard, shooting-in-the-dark hypothesis.

But scientific theories are definitely not these sorts of "guesses."  Have you ever heard of Einstein's theory of relativity?  Would you say e=mc2 is a haphazard hypothesis?

And you're right, the theory of evolution is theoretically falsifiable.  Unfortunately for the creationist, as scientists around the world make more and more discoveries in many different fields, the evidence keeps stacking up in favor of evolution.

View Post


No confusion, the problem lies with you haphazardly saying that the evidence keeps stacking up in favor of evolution. Problem is, you have to support this hypothesis, and then you might just have a theory.

Anyone can say anythings evidence keeps stacking up in favor of anything, but you have to explain what that evidence is.

#89 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 06 December 2008 - 01:57 AM

The confusion arises with the word "theory."

You can use the word to mean a sort of guess, a haphazard, shooting-in-the-dark hypothesis.


And that is not what I implied.

But scientific theories are definitely not these sorts of "guesses."  Have you ever heard of Einstein's theory of relativity?  Would you say e=mc2 is a haphazard hypothesis?


That's not the problem.

And you're right, the theory of evolution is theoretically falsifiable.  Unfortunately for the creationist, as scientists around the world make more and more discoveries in many different fields, the evidence keeps stacking up in favor of evolution.

View Post


Now you have hit the problem. You imply falsifiability, then in the same sentence imply that it's not falsifiable. Stacking of the "same" evidence proves nothing more to a point. It only points to where "that" evidence leads. If it leads to the same conclusions because it's the same evidence. It does not prove evolution more. It just reaffirms what you already know (concluded). But because everything you do has to be falsifiable, you can still be wrong, right? Or will you envoke the mountains of evidence next to imply that it's not?

What I'm trying to get at, is that the mountains of evidence you refer to would be like me taking several books of the Bible and stacking them. Stacking them until they become a mountain. It's all the same type of evidence, and because I stacked it. Does it make the evidence more convincing? Does it make God more provable? Does it make an implied absolute? Does it make God a true fact? No?

Neither does stacking your evidence and claiming the same thing.

Now, if God were God. Then His book would have God knowledge right?

To create a universe, science already knows that you need 3 things. Time, space, and matter:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

1) In the begining = time.
2) Heaven = space.
3) Earth = matter.

Only a Creator can start the formula for a creation from a basic beginning format like this. How does a book written in a time that no one even knew what was in space, know exactly the three things basically needed to create a universe?

He would have knowledge of that time that no one else had:

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

No one had peered into space yet. No one knew that the light would be signs for seasons days and years. Some even thought that the things in space travelled around the earth. Which is feasible if all you can observe is what you see on the surface of earth. And no one knew the earth's orbit around the second created light (the sun) would cause the signs for seasons and years.

You might ask: Where did the first light come from?

Revelation 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

Same exact situation in creation. No sun, no moon, and the light came from God. And the substance of the light was Christ (lamb), not photons. So no sun needed.

Can that light support life?

Revelation: 21:24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

People walked and lived in that type of light. So plants etc... are not going to freeze until the sun is created. You see, if atheists were no so bent on proving the Bible wrong. They just might have answers for such questions. But if you deem something already wrong, then why would you need or even want these answers?

Why was the first light divided?

God's light has no darkness which means darkness (shadows) has to be added before it can exist. Once added, it has to be separated. The separation created night and day.

Revelation 21:25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.

1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Having knowledge of things that no one could obtain at the time the book was written. Means that someone could peer into space. But it was no one on this planet.

So how and where does such knowledge come from and how is it obtained?

#90 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 06 December 2008 - 02:38 AM

Then we have the rules set forth for change for all created life. All created life was instructed to reproduce "after it's kind". And this is mentioned 10 times, so it is like the 10 commandments. But it is the ten laws of reproduction. What is a kind?

1) Bird kind.
2) Cat kind.
3) Dog and wolf kind.

etc....

And how far does the "observed process" for evolution go?

1) We have seen birds make different types of birds. But because it stays within the bird kind this breaks no creation laws.
2) We have seen dogs make different dog types. But because it stays within the dog kind it does not break any creation laws.

What is the claimed "process" for evolution that has not been "observed"?

1) We have not seen a reptile become a bird, or visa versa.
2) We have not seen a dog become a horse, or visa versa.

In fact we have not "observed" any evolution "process" that shows one "kind" of animal becoming something out side of it's kind. Which means that the limitation that God put upon all created life would be a knowledge He had that evolution has not dis-proven with "observed processes" but only "claimed processes".

So how can it be that such knowledge would exist when the Bible was written, that a Creator would know just how far His creation could go? No man knew this at that time.

But how about the life forms that look like they progressed in stages?

What is the template for all life? DNA and RNA.

So are we related because of evolution, or the template for all life?

Example: If I take the template ingredients that makes a cake. How many different things can I make with that, that would be nearly the same?

1) Cup cakes.
2) Brownies.
3) Mini cakes.
4) Different flavor cakes.
5) Different size cakes.

But because my template has limitations, so does what I create with it. And because I use the same template on all things, all of what I create will be related because of this.

If DNA and RNA were not what makes us related with the rest of life on this planet, then there should have been other life forms that evolved that contain neither DNA or RNA. Can you name one?

Question: Do you know how much actual DNA differences there are in just 1% difference between man and chimps?

You might think maybe 100, or 1000 things different. Maybe one million. How about 30,000,000 (30 million) things different. You see, the reason people are not told the actual number of the 1% is because 1% is much easier to sell as being almost the same, than 30,000,000 differences. This is also why you won't see this number printed in any school text book. It's because those who want evolution to be true know that people who can think would figure this out.

If not, why is the actual number for 1% always left out? Google the difference in DNA between man and chimps and see if you can find the actual number of 1%. You know where I found the number? I was researching DNA difference between twins, and ran across a crime lab site that actually gave the number. You will not find that number listed on any established evolution promotion site.

Why hide true mathematical information?

1) Because evolutionists need to hide the truth because what is being implied has nothing to do with truth.
2) Evolutionists are afraid to list the truth because they know that someone will put the pieces together.
3) What is believed is a known deception.

If there is math, math requires an absolute answer. And there is math in 1%, but the answer is hidden on purpose. I was told by one evolutionists that the reason that number was hidden was because most people cannot comprehend the meaning of such a huge number. So basically he was saying that most people cannot comprehend basic math. And that we are all to stupid to figure it out. Do you, or anyone else here, figure themselves to stupid to figure out basic percentage math?

#91 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 06 December 2008 - 03:10 AM

The confusion arises with the word "theory."

You can use the word to mean a sort of guess, a haphazard, shooting-in-the-dark hypothesis.

But scientific theories are definitely not these sorts of "guesses."  Have you ever heard of Einstein's theory of relativity?  Would you say e=mc2 is a haphazard hypothesis?

And you're right, the theory of evolution is theoretically falsifiable.  Unfortunately for the creationist, as scientists around the world make more and more discoveries in many different fields, the evidence keeps stacking up in favor of evolution.

View Post

Such lectures might have been better spent on Darwin. He was a pioneer in the practice of publishing "theories", hot-off-the-press.

From the Introduction to the First Edition of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. (bold added to save time)

This fundamental subject of Natural Selection will be treated at some length in the fourth chapter; and we shall then see how Natural Selection almost inevitably causes much Extinction of the less improved forms of life and induces what I have called Divergence of Character. In the next chapter I shall discuss the complex and little known laws of variation and of correlation of growth. In the four succeeding chapters, the most apparent and gravest difficulties on the theory will be given: namely, first, the difficulties of transitions, or understanding how a simple being or a simple organ can be changed and perfected into a highly developed being or elaborately constructed organ; secondly the subject of Instinct, or the mental powers of animals, thirdly, Hybridism, or the infertility of species and the fertility of varieties when intercrossed; and fourthly, the imperfection of the Geological Record. In the next chapter I shall consider the geological succession of organic beings throughout time; in the eleventh and twelfth, their geographical distribution throughout space; in the thirteenth, their classification or mutual affinities, both when mature and in an embryonic condition. In the last chapter I shall give a brief recapitulation of the whole work, and a few concluding remarks.)

Of course, this isn't the only time Darwin applies the term to his untested speculation. Chapter 6 is even entitles "Difficulties on Theory", is it not?

#92 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 06 December 2008 - 11:25 AM

...the evidence keeps stacking up in favor of evolution.

View Post


Hi Sis,

I have one question.

Like what?

Vestigial Structures? – works against evolution, losing not gaining
Homology? – common designer, just as and more likely
Adaptation/Speciation? – Ultimately disproves evolution by demonstrating barriers
Genetics? – Intelligently encoded programs that Bill Gates might actually worship
Fossil Record? – Evidence for a Flood and evidence for superior creatures that preceded lesser creatures suffering from unbridled entropy (That’s us)
Abiogenesis? – Virtually abandoned as a pseudo-science (Can you say, Panspermia?)

The basic laws of Physics must be defied and/or ignored to tell the grand origins fairytale:

The law of conservation mass/energy – Where did everything come from? Who/what bought the gas to run this universe and who/what wound it up?
The second law of thermodynamics – How does stuff deteriorating towards a neutral state become active and ordered?
Causation – We observe cause and effect, all scientific endeavors require cause and effect for testing, is the big bang theory simply exempt? (Our intelligent transcendent God is, by His own Word, your mindless matter isn't)

We would like to see the scientific, repeatable, testable, and demonstratable kind of evidence. We will sniff out ad hoc interpretations and just-so stories.

Darwin may have won the hearts and minds of many atheists, and uncritical believers, but that doesn't make it a fact, or scientific, any more then believing in Dawkin's Flying Spaghetti Monster.

We admit that the evidence of Christ and God’s creation ultimately requires faith (with repentance preceding) to complete the transaction for salvation and that we live by grace through faith in Christ's truth.

Can you admit that belief in Evolution is also faith? I would argue a blind faith but we’ll just start with faith for starters. You can believe it all day, every day, for the rest of your life but if you’re honest, you’ll admit that it has the same faith base as every other false religion in the world today.

Hey everybody, Judy is my big sister so be nice to her. ;)

#93 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 06 December 2008 - 07:03 PM

Hey guys,

Just look what happens when you mention God in America.

Kentucky law puts God in charge of security? Atheists appalled
By Rex W. Huppke | Tribune reporter
3:11 PM CST, December 4, 2008

As an atheist and a Kentuckian, Edwin Hensley was rather put off to learn that the God he has spent decades not believing had been put in charge of keeping the Bluegrass State safe from terrorism.

Turns out a stealthy legislative move by a Baptist preacher-turned-politician led to the passage of a 2006 bill requiring the state's Office of Homeland Security to acknowledge formally that safety and security in the state "cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon almighty God." The language in the bill only recently came to the public's attention, leading Hensley and some like-minded Kentuckians to file a lawsuit against the state.

"It's absurd to me," said Hensley, a proudly godless Louisville resident. "It's as absurd to me as it would be to a fundamental Christian if you told them the security of Kentucky is in the hands of almighty Zeus."

So riled up are the atheists over this apparent squeezing together of church and state that the lawsuit resorts to name calling, claiming the plaintiffs fear "their very safety as residents of Kentucky may be in the hands of fanatics, traitor or fools."

www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-081204-atheists,0,6784488.story - 132k -

You think it's bad in london?

Enjoy.

#94 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 07 December 2008 - 10:53 AM

Turns out a stealthy legislative move by a Baptist preacher-turned-politician led to the passage of a 2006 bill requiring the state's Office of Homeland Security to acknowledge formally that safety and security in the state "cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon almighty God." The language in the bill only recently came to the public's attention, leading Hensley and some like-minded Kentuckians to file a lawsuit against the state.

View Post


Can you legislate for gods?

#95 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 December 2008 - 12:14 PM

Then we have the rules set forth for change for all created life. All created life was instructed to reproduce "after it's kind". And this is mentioned 10 times, so it is like the 10 commandments. But it is the ten laws of reproduction. What is a kind?

1) Bird kind.
2) Cat kind.
3) Dog and wolf kind.


I've noticed that when it comes to kinds, the further one gets away from humans, the broader the categories seem to become. For example, birds (Aves) represent an entire class of diverse species (10,000+ species). Comparatively speaking, mammals are also an entire class of organisms (Mammalia). So suggesting that birds stay in the bird kind is like saying mammals (cats and dogs, etc) stay within the mammal kind. Whereas cats and dogs (Felidae and Canidae) each represent a family within a particular order (Carnivora) within the Mammalia class.

It seems to me there is zero consistency when it comes to getting creationists to define "kind".

#96 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 07 December 2008 - 12:24 PM

It seems to me there is zero consistency when it comes to getting creationists to define "kind".


Sorry,but nobody knows that for sure.If I saw a gila monster evolve into a marine iguana then I would say macro-evolution is true,but a kind is a much smaller catagory than that.

Thanks.

#97 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 December 2008 - 01:02 PM

Sorry,but nobody knows that for sure.If I saw a gila monster evolve into a marine iguana then I would say macro-evolution is true,but a kind is a much smaller catagory than that.

Thanks.

View Post


Well one of the "kind" groups suggested is a pretty broad category (birds). And others are very narrow.

Maybe you guys should hash this out amongst yourselves before making these declarations and what is and isn't "kinds" of organisms.

#98 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 07 December 2008 - 01:40 PM

Can you legislate for gods?

View Post


The Taliban thinks it's doable.

#99 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 07 December 2008 - 02:08 PM

Well one of the "kind" groups suggested is a pretty broad category (birds). And others are very narrow.


I dont think pelicans evolved from penguins or the other way around.I would have suggested that hawks and eagles shared a common ancestor based on their morphology,but dna analysis,just this year has put them in different families.

Thats also what has happened with the emmu and ostrich.

"Birds" plural,is a generalization,without wasting all day listing every species,genera,and family.

Thanks.

#100 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 07 December 2008 - 02:26 PM

I dont think pelicans evolved from penguins or the other way around.I would have suggested that hawks and eagles shared a common ancestor based on their morphology,but dna analysis,just this year has put them in different families.

Thats also what has happened with the emmu and ostrich.

"Birds" plural,is a generalization,without wasting all day listing every species,genera,and family.

Thanks.

View Post


Are they all, or are they all not bird kind?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users