Javabean

yep. Although even an Atheist Evolutionist could believe that there was another cause to life, that was not Abiogenesis...but I can't fathom what that could be.

If you don't have a better response than repeating what you have already stated then don't post anything. It is better that way. And fine, we haven't been able to nail down the definition of Species for the last 150 years... I see Creationists haven't been able to nail down the definition of Kind for the last 2000+ years

I concede that point. If they can reproduce fertile offspring then they are probably the same species. Man I always wanted Sea Monkeys . But fine, replace monkeys with whales. Or Crabs, or Lobsters.

That is in-correct Scott An Abiogenesist (sp) believes that. An Evolutionist doesn't have to believe in that at all. There are a ton of Evolutionists on this board who believe God created all the life we find.

Fair enough. But it seems to me, from the reviews, is that this author has written a book on Evolution, that is easy to approach for people interested in Evolution. For someone who need a better understanding of what is actually said from Evolutionists is better than quote mining from Creationist books on Evolution. Wouldn't you say that as being a fair statement? Again to learn. If someone wants a better understanding of what they are trying to fight, then to know what is written is better than to go forward in ignorance. I believe that this has alread been addressed, and I don't have anything to add. Of course facts are facts. But what can we learn from the facts. How do we explain the facts. These are the things that take interpretations to do. It would take someone with more knowledge on this than me to counter it. So I will just say this. I do not believe that you are correct in this statement. If you say so. Life forms adapt to their environment. If there is enough of a change in the environment, there will be enough change in the species to call them 2 different species. Then why aren't there monkey fossils down there with the trilobites? Yay common ground! Oh its gone again. But I know you don't just let something sit. You have the drive to learn. You are a voracious reader. I know you won't just sit there and not keep up with the times. Maybe something will come along and change your mind on the whole thing. Things change you know

Sorry Mama I meant no issue with you when I posted. Are you fairly new to the Evo vs Creo debates? (This is in no way an attack either) There is a lot of wiggle room, a lot more wiggle room than species, in how kind is used. If an Evolutionist goes on to use Kind in the way that he uses Species, inevitably a Creationist will start screaming that Kind doesn't mean species. And When an Evolutionist tries to find out what Kind actually mean, some Creationist will mock the Evolutionist with either "You can't even define "species"...or With "Kind=Species" Can you understand the frustration anyone would have when having to deal with that? Its like trying to play a game, and the rules are constantly changing.

And this post in no way clarifies the issue. Kind is used to mean species/family/what-ever-you-want-it-to-mean-at-the-time-you-use-it... Species is difficult to define, but at least you can find easily what species means in the different circumstances that the term has any wiggle room. So you are incorrect Cass. There is a complex definition for Species, you just need to know when and why the definition is changed. One thing you will notice. Species never equals Family. So instead of tossing the canned creationist response at me, why don't you figure out what kind actually means, when it means it, and why there are the differences. You can do that can't you?

You need to re-read post #5 again. It seems to me you missed a lot of what Geode wrote there. such as and These 2 quotes make your complaints and comments about the professor moot.

Depends on which sources you are looking at. And how much change you are looking for. But as far as certain species "not" evolving isn't the nail in the coffin that the Creationists are trying to make it seem. If a species has not shown much change, then the question is why? One good explanation is that there is not an environmental pressure on the species that has changed much. And this is the reason why I am annoyed with the kind/species thing... Kind=Species in all contexts except when Creationists use it in reference to Noah. So if Kind does not equal Species then there needs to be a specific definition of Kind that makes it unique and different from species. The difference has not been brought forward by any Creationist that I know of yet.

I haven't read it so I can't answer your questions. Isn't everything interpretation of facts/observations? We know that the creatures in the fossil record are different than the creatures currently around. The interpretations that we can take from this are that creatures can change. We can also say that some species have gone extinct. We can also observe that certain species are not found with other species. This is a fact. This tells us that different creatures existed at different times. Very true. If the introduction of any book sounds incredible, or credulous then the rest of the book probably will also.

very true. I made an error in not re-reading Cass's post. my apologies for the mistake.

oh I absolutely agree with you. Neither does anyone else who hasn't read it either.

exactly. But to be fair he did say already that he only read a few paragraphs.

I don't see this thread as attacking Creationism at all. Its a discussion on one of the more popular Creationist websites that people go to to learn. Specifically it is a discussion about tactics that they feel do not work, or are detrimental to the cause. Mrs MamaEleaphant is trying to make sense of these from the Creationists knowledge on this forum. Anyone can benefit from discussions like this, you just need to not let yourself get irked by the conversation.

Have any of you read the book? I haven't but the reviews make it sound approachable by anyone interested in learning about Evolution. As far as "not being able to make up our minds on what we evolved from... This fish is further down the Evolutionary ladder that the simian ancestor we share with the Great Apes. If what this book is saying to be true is true, then we would have to have this common ancestor with many Creatures.