Creation vs. Evolution

[Scaff]

You state....

It is clearly evident, as has been pointed out here by those in the Evolutionist camp, the whole claim of evolution is clearly unsubstantiatable. Thats obvious.

hfs asks.....

At what point have any of the evolutionists in this thread used those exact words?.

you then quote me......

Parts of evolutionary theory can be tested in real-time and have (flys once again), does it prove the whole of evolutionary theory? No, but then again no one has claimed that.

I did not in any way, shape or form even come close to implying that "the whole claim of evolution is clearly unsubstantiatable".

I did not use those words, nor did my words come close to stating that.

Your post and claim that I did is blatantly miss-leading and I have to be blunt I am incredulous that you would have the sheer nerve to do something of this nature.


Scaff

 

[Famine]

The level of delusion here is almost unbelievable.

It has nothing to do with my say-so.
It is the established standard.
Which by the way you choose to completely ignore.

I ignore, in the discussion of science, any "standard" that is unscientific. All research ever conducted in the field of biological sciences rejects the creation myth.

Good question.
Since I didn't set the boundaries on this I could not exactly say.
All I know is it is part of the record of creation in Genesis, but is not very distinguishably detailed.
I believe it is confined to what we call breeds and varieties of a given species, hence it would remain "like kind".
I do not believe it could vary much, less God would be lying when he says
"he is not mocked, a man will reap what he sows".

Creation "scientists" disagree with you. Their baramins are much more expansive than that. They believe that all cat species - the cat baramin - originated at the moment of creation as a "cat ancestor" which then speciated into wild cats, domestic cats, cheetahs, pumas (including the cougar), lynxes, ocelots, caracals, servals, leopards, panthers (lions, tigers, jaguars) and leopards.

Of course evolutionary biologists have a very similar theory, based on phylogenetic evidence. The cat ancestor speciated into the Felinae subfamily, containing the Felis genus (wild and domestic cats), the Otocolobus genus, the Prionailurus genus, the Acinonyx genus (cheetah), the Puma genus, the Lynx genus, the Leopardus genus, the Leptailurus genus, the Caracal genus, the Profelis genus, the Catopuma genus and the Pardofelis genus and the Pantherinae subfamily, containing the Neofelis genus, the Uncia genus and the Panthera genus.

The only real differences are that one has decades of research and evidence behind it, while the other is pseudoscience grafted onto real science in the hope of making the creation myth more acceptable and that the latter also does not deny evidence that the Felidae family (cat baramin) ancestor was itself a speciation of a larger suborder of hyena ancestors, meerkat/mongoose ancestors, civet ancestors and genet ancestors. And that the common ancestor of all of those was itself a speciation of a larger order of dog ancestors (which, themselves were weasel, bear, panda, skunk, raccoon and seal ancestors).


You see, not even they, with their bizarrely selective way of looking at evidence, seek to deny the existence of macroevolution as you do. Not even the people who devote their lives to scientifically proving your belief agree with you.

Not what is speculated on to occur beyond that in abstract time frames.

What, to you, qualifies as an "abstract time frame"? When does scientific proof to you become conjecture just because you don't like the size of the numbers involved?

 

[Dotini]

First ever photos of tool-using fish! (Or so claims the article)

http://io9.com/5819728/this-is-the-first-ever-photo-of-a-fish-using-tools
Surely this is evidence of something?

Could it be evolution-in-the-making? Is God ordaining that fish now use tools?

One guess: the universe is "absurd" - the universe just happens to be the way it is, and lacks any special significance.

 

[Touring Mars]

First ever photos of tool-using fish! (Or so claims the article)

http://io9.com/5819728/this-is-the-first-ever-photo-of-a-fish-using-tools

Surely this is evidence of something?

Yep, it confirms that my uncle was right.... they really are taking the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs way too far.

Nice find, btw 👍

 

[AndersonG22]

First ever photos of tool-using fish! (Or so claims the article)

http://io9.com/5819728/this-is-the-first-ever-photo-of-a-fish-using-tools

God tought that fish well.

 

[dylansan]

Here's a little tip for anyone out there. Don't ever read the comments to youtube videos about evolution or creationism or atheism or anything. If you do, they will likely make you a sad panda.

 

[CAM]

Yep, it confirms that my uncle was right.... they really are taking the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs way too far.

Nice find, btw 👍

Hahahahaha I lol'd 👍 👍

 

[Villain]

Worker fish, most delish?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

The level of delusion here is almost unbelievable.

I ignore, in the discussion of science, any "standard" that is unscientific. All research ever conducted in the field of biological sciences rejects the creation myth.

As to delusion, I can easily proclaim the same thing.
You attempt to hide behind the cloak of the "scientific", yet completely fail to recognize the the overwhelming factual reality of the scientific provable, which is "like-kind".

 

[Sureboss]

This "factual reality" which you haven't provided any evidence for?

Go on, enlighten us.

 

[TheCracker]

Here's a little tip for anyone out there. Don't ever read the comments to youtube videos about evolution or creationism or atheism or anything. If you do, they will likely make you a sad panda.

full stop.

 

[Famine]

As to delusion, I can easily proclaim the same thing.
You attempt to hide behind the cloak of the "scientific", yet completely fail to recognize the the overwhelming factual reality of the scientific provable, which is "like-kind".

All scientific research ever conducted in the field of biological sciences disagrees with you, even the hogwash put forwards by people who actually try to prove your belief for you. Yet you still deny it.

 

[AndersonG22]

As to delusion, I can easily proclaim the same thing.
You attempt to hide behind the cloak of the "scientific", yet completely fail to recognize the the overwhelming factual reality of the scientific provable, which is "like-kind".

You fail to understand what 97% of scientist agree on, evolution.

You should watch the video in my sig.

 

[Touring Mars]

As to delusion, I can easily proclaim the same thing. You attempt to hide behind the cloak of the "scientific", yet completely fail to recognize the the overwhelming factual reality of the scientific provable, which is "like-kind".

You still need to do the following:

• Define "kind"
• Describe precisely what you mean by "like or same kind"
• Explain, with supporting evidence, why the same observable processes that give rise to new species do not also apply to "kinds"
• Explain how key similarities, notably the pattern of genetic similarities observed between many different "kinds", do not support the theory of common descent
• Explain what an "abstract time frame" is

To anybody else interested in some answers, please feel free to add to this list.

 

[Blitz187]

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

This might be of interest to SCJ.... Since he keeps insisting on evidence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[Encyclopedia]

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

This might be of interest to SCJ.... Since he keeps insisting on evidence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

There's no point. He's already decided what to believe.

 

[Blitz187]

^^^

Thats why I said "might be" of interest to him

 

[homeforsummer]

You attempt to hide behind the cloak of the "scientific",

You mean that "cloak" of, y'know... evidence? I wouldn't call it a cloak when it's plain to see and has been corroborated multiple times by different scientists.

yet completely fail to recognize the the overwhelming factual reality of the scientific provable, which is "like-kind".

What bit of creationism is in any way a "factual reality"? Let alone an overwhelming one...

 

[DK]

I found out something interesting while watching QI last night: even at the time when Darwin first submitted his research work for evaluation, many Church of England priests advised their congregations to take the Bible's words with a pinch of salt.

 

[Caz]

This thread is an awesome read and has led to many mpre great articles. I lean towards evolution myself. I cannot really take part in this conversation tho. I have trouble expressing my thoughts sometimes.
Its hard to believe in A GOD when there are so many different gods in the worlds religion.


Cant we all just get along.
God created what humans evolved from

 

[TheCracker]

God created what humans evolved from

Humans created God.

 

[DK]

Don't forget the rest, e.g. Zeus, Mars, Neptune, Hades...you don't want to make those guys feel left out.

 

[Denur]

Humans created God.

You beat me to it. I was thinking along the lines of: An Earth creature has evolved into a being that is capable of creating fantasy beings like gods and Santa Clause.

Btw. the latter was created to force young children into obedience, without using force: If you're nice you get presents, if you are bad, you are put into a sack and taken to that Muslim infested country called Spain (even-though the Mores had left Spain centuries before Saint Nicolas - from whom Santa Claus is derived - was even born).
At an older age they were ripe for something more evil: Believe in God and you'll get eternal life in Heaven, after you die! Be a bad person by not believing in God and you'll suffer for ever in Hell, after you die, but we'll be nice and have you get used to Hell by burning you on the stake with a slow fire.

sorry for the off-topic.

 

[Caz]

I agree. Was just being a wiseass. My response to being around people way to intelligent for me .
As i said, if there was a fence i'm on the side of evolution.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Humans created God.

Are you stating that as your opinion or as fact, Dan?


PS - I guess this should be in the "God " thread. Anyways, I do believe in evolution. And I do believe in the existence of God. Also, I find it funny how people think such beliefs are mutually exclusive.

 

[AndersonG22]

Are you stating that as your opinion or as fact, Dan?


PS - I guess this should be in the "God " thread. Anyways, I do believe in evolution. And I do believe in the existence of God. Also, I find it funny how people think such beliefs are mutually exclusive.

Didnt god create man in his image? How can that true if man evolved?

 

[Hun200kmh]

The belief that God created man in His image has nothing to do with the physical appearance of humans. Although John Malkovitch looks convincing

 

[Keef]

Didnt god create man in his image? How can that true if man evolved?

Which idea do you think is more legitimate - a book that says one thing, or entire libraries, museums, fossil records, and countless scholars spitting evidence in your face who say the other?

It could also man that God actually had a photo of the universe, and then created man in it. And thus we find ourselves here.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Keef, I think Anderson is on your side, check his sig

And btw, so am I, I do believe in Evolution. And I totally agree with the 1st 30 seconds of the Youtube clip linked by Anderson.

PS - My guess is that "Evolution excludes faith in God" must be some protestant thing ....

 

[AndersonG22]

Which idea do you think is more legitimate - a book that says one thing, or entire libraries, museums, fossil records, and countless scholars spitting evidence in your face who say the other?

It could also man that God actually had a photo of the universe, and then created man in it. And thus we find ourselves here.

I think its clear where I stand if you look at my sig.