Creation vs. Evolution

[homeforsummer]

If humans didn't exist then there would be nobody to spread the word of the concept of a God, so it's fair to say that humans created God.

 

[DK]

You can't say for certain that the idea of a deity is exclusive to humans. Besides, my acceptance of evolution makes no impact on whether or not I believe in God.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

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.

It should be readily apparent to you by now, I'm not concerned in the least
with who may, or maynot agree with me.
It's not a popularity contest.
As a matter of fact, since many of you fail to recognize the realities of like kind reproduction,
which as said, you and everything around you, is a product of, I believe I prefer it on this side more than ever.

Nevertheless, this is an interesting point.
In the absense of specific details, concerning the Creation account, it is not known if there was a single cat ancestor,
from which all the others sprang or if several were created.
Either scenario could be said to meet the "like kind" qualification.

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?

I think you know what constitudes the "scientific theoritical" and "scientific proof".
Has nothing to do with likes and dislikes of time frames.
One is in the demonstrable, and the other due to its undemonstrable, abstract form, is in the theoritical. Likewise it is destined to remain there.
A hypothetical concept that cannot be proven out.


As you can see this is rather vague, and open to some degree of interpretation:

Genesis 1:
20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

 

[AndersonG22]

It's not a popularity contest.
As a matter of fact, since many of you fail to recognize the realities of like kind reproduction,
which as said, you and everything around you, is a product of, I believe I prefer it on this side more than ever.

97% of Scientists fail to recognize "the realities of like kind reproduction" as well.

 

[arora]

97% of Scientists fail to recognize "the realities of like kind reproduction" as well.

Source?

 

[AndersonG22]

"Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time," while only 61% of the public agrees, according to a new report (PDF, p. 37) from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press." - http://ncse.com/news/2009/07/views-evolution-among-public-scientists-004904

EDIT:

""Views on evolution vary substantially within the general public," the report observed (p. 38), "particularly by religion and attendance at religious services." For example, among white evangelical Protestants responding, a majority, 57%, agreed that humans existed in their present form since the beginning of time, and among those respondents attending religious services weekly or more often, a near-majority, 49%, agreed. In contrast, among the religiously unaffiliated responding, 60% agreed that humans evolved due to natural processes. Also correlated with acceptance of evolution were youth and education." - http://ncse.com/news/2009/07/views-evolution-among-public-scientists-004904

 

[arora]

Thanks for the link, the ncse part doesn't say much but I'm interested in reading the pew file 👍

 

[dylansan]

 

[Famine]

It should be readily apparent to you by now, I'm not concerned in the least
with who may, or maynot agree with me.
It's not a popularity contest.
As a matter of fact, since many of you fail to recognize the realities of like kind reproduction,
which as said, you and everything around you, is a product of, I believe I prefer it on this side more than ever.

It should be readily apparent to you by now that what you believe and what you prefer is irrelevant to reality.

Nevertheless, this is an interesting point.
In the absense of specific details, concerning the Creation account, it is not known if there was a single cat ancestor,
from which all the others sprang or if several were created.
Either scenario could be said to meet the "like kind" qualification.

How far back is this cat ancestor then? Only in one post you say that cats always make cats and now you're saying that a common wild cat/domestic cat/cheetah/puma/cougar/lynx/ocelot/caracal/serval/leopard/panther ancestor can make all those different kinds of cats - ever seen a leopard and a leopard breed to make an ocelot? No? Only that's the exact argument you were making against evolutionary theory earlier, yet now it's acceptable.

Of course, it's only one step back from that, with the exact same phylogenetic evidence, to a common cat/hyena/meerkat/mongoose/civet/genet ancestor making all those different families. But for some reason you reject that, even though it has been proven with the exact same evidence as the above has. Presumably on what you prefer to believe, as opposed to the evidence you keep quoting (which doesn't exist).

I think you know what constitudes the "scientific theoritical" and "scientific proof".
Has nothing to do with likes and dislikes of time frames.
One is in the demonstrable, and the other due to its undemonstrable, abstract form, is in the theoritical. Likewise it is destined to remain there.
A hypothetical concept that cannot be proven out.

Except that it has been, very, very many times.

So you're not going to answer the question of what kind of time frame you see as acceptable and what kind of time frame you see as "abstract" then? What a shocker.

 

[Hun200kmh]

That's a funny cartoon

However, and assuming that the priest depicted is meant to be a Catholic one, you should dig A LOT deeper than cartoons made by people used to cynicism and P.R. caring corporations. Something people rarely do nowadays, I know. The truth is often more rich, more complex, and surely less divided in good and evil, honest/truthful scientists and cunning priests

To understand what I mean I'll quote this:

Since the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859, the attitude of the Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has slowly been refined. For about 100 years, there was no authoritative pronouncement on the subject. By 1950, Pope Pius XII agreed to the academic freedom to study the scientific implications of evolution, so long as Catholic dogma is not violated.[1] Today, the Church's unofficial position is an example of theistic evolution, also known as evolutionary creation,[2] stating that faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict, though humans are regarded as a special creation, and that the existence of God is required to explain both monogenism and the spiritual component of human origins. Moreover, the Church teaches that the process of evolution is a planned and purpose-driven natural process, actively guided by God.[3][4][5] No infallible declarations by the Pope or an Ecumenical Council have been made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

 

[Sureboss]

You can't say for certain that the idea of a deity is exclusive to humans.

Never seen the neighrbour's cat wearing a burka.

Of course it is exclusive to humans.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Never seen the neighrbour's cat wearing a burka.

Of course it is exclusive to humans.

Agreed.

 

[Denur]

Never seen the neighrbour's cat wearing a burka.

Of course it is exclusive to humans.

And possibly 'E.T.'

 

[fitftw]

Well, it's obvious that a higher being created us. Just look at the facts.

What facts? I hope you're being sarcastic. There's no truth to anything on this planet until you die, and even then there might not be anything. If you believe in creationism, you better believe in the following:

ghosts
aliens
bigfoot
lochness monster
anything else that humans think out of their insane nature that can't be proven.

 

[Famine]

Two minor points. Firstly, yes he was being sarcastic. Secondly, yes he was being sarcastic back in 2004, because you just responded to post #3 of this 7,000 post thread...

 

[Touring Mars]

Way to quote a post made almost seven years ago, by a member who hasn't been on GTPlanet for two years.

 

[Small_Fryz]

Way to quote a post made almost seven years ago, by a member who hasn't been on GTPlanet for two years.

I just got all excited he was back

 

[Moot]

Jesus shall be resurrected by bumping an old forum post he made in 22AD.

 

[fitftw]

well exCUSE ME. I didn't know this thread existed, and I didn't want to just read the last page. I wanted to see what the first page was all about.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

It should be readily apparent to you by now that what you believe and what you prefer is irrelevant to reality.

What I prefer is irrelevant.
What I believe, coincides exactly with the factual realities.
Like kind, reproduces like kind.

How far back is this cat ancestor then?

How should I know, your the one who brought it up.
Doesn't all your theoritical evidence tell you?

[Only in one post you say that cats always make cats and now you're saying that a common wild cat/domestic cat/cheetah/puma/cougar/lynx/ocelot/caracal/serval/leopard/panther ancestor can make all those different kinds of cats - ever seen a leopard and a leopard breed to make an ocelot? No? Only that's the exact argument you were making against evolutionary theory earlier, yet now it's acceptable.

Did you even read the post?
I did not say it was acceptable.
I said, "it could be considered" acceptable, depending on the exact definition of "like kind" that is employed.
Distinctions are made in the Creation account, but are not specifically detailed.
Therefore, from that point forward, as said, it is open to some degree of interpretation.

Of course, it's only one step back from that, with the exact same phylogenetic evidence, to a common cat/hyena/meerkat/mongoose/civet/genet ancestor making all those different families. But for some reason you reject that, even though it has been proven with the exact same evidence as the above has. Presumably on what you prefer to believe, as opposed to the evidence you keep quoting (which doesn't exist).

?

Except that it has been, very, very many times.

As a possibility in theory, or as demonstrable proof?

So you're not going to answer the question of what kind of time frame you see as acceptable and what kind of time frame you see as "abstract" then? What a shocker.

So now you claim you cannot distinguish between a demonstrable time frame and a undemonstrable(abstract) one.
I'm not surprised, since you also claim there is no "proof" for "like kind" reproduction when it is clearly "self-evident. "

In view of obvious inconsistencies here, I am forced to question your sincerity on both counts.

 

[Famine]

What I prefer is irrelevant.
What I believe, coincides exactly with the factual realities.

What you believe coincides exactly only with what you believe to be reality. Very self-serving.

How should I know, your the one who brought it up.
Doesn't all your theoritical evidence tell you?

No. Our actual evidence tells us quite nicely though.

Did you even read the post?
I did not say it was acceptable.
I said, "it could be considered" acceptable, depending on the exact definition of "like kind" that is employed.
Distinctions are made in the Creation account, but are not specifically detailed.
Therefore, from that point forward, as said, it is open to some degree of interpretation.

You dodge the question, yet again, of what exactly constitutes "like kind", species, genus or family (or greater).

Your baraminologists believe it's family. Your statements so far seem to indicate you believe it's species. Who do you believe is right and why?

As a possibility in theory, or as demonstrable proof?

The latter. Hence the words I used.

So now you claim you cannot distinguish between a demonstrable time frame and a undemonstrable(abstract) one.

No, I'm asking you for your distinction. You've twice refused to answer now.

Is 50 years abstract? 100 years? 200 years? 500 years? 1,000 years? 2,000 years? 10,000 years? A million years? A billion years? Where is your boundary between reasonable time periods and abstract ones?

I'm not surprised, since you also claim there is no "proof" for "like kind" reproduction when it is clearly "self-evident. "

Something being "clearly "self-evident"" does not constitute proof. It constitutes conjecture - and you put me in mind of Lionel Hutz at this point:

"Do you have any actual evidence, Mr. Hutz?"
"I've got plenty of hearsay and conjecture your honour. They're kinds of evidence."

You're looking at things and thinking "Yeah. That's how it works." and ignoring every single piece of research in the field of biological sciences that has ever been conducted that says you're dead wrong.

 

[Touring Mars]

Like kind, reproduces like kind.

But, you have repeatedly said (and you have been politely asked repeatedly to clarify this point) that there's a difference between "like" and "same" kinds. It's a massive and utterly key difference, hence why it is so important that you answer the questions put to you, such as:

what exactly constitutes "like kind"

• 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

You insist that speciation is limited to occuring within 'kinds', but you've been repeatedly asked you to explain how that can be and to show some evidence that this is the case. Unfortunately, all you do is repeat the same statements and refuse (or more likely are unable) to show any evidence to support your hypothesis.

You have also been shown evidence that supports the opposing hypothesis - that different 'kinds' arose through common descent - several times already. That different 'kinds' exhibit such massive genetic similarities (as well as key differences) is, whether you like it or not, perfectly explained by the common descent hypothesis. It is also very strong evidence to refute the idea that speciation is limited to occuring within the boundaries of 'kinds'.

If you want your ideas to be taken even remotely seriously, you need to show evidence that supports your hypothesis and refutes the opposing hypothesis. Your continued failure to do this, or to even address some of the questions that I and others have specifically asked you, only leads me to believe that you simply don't have anything to show.

 

[Exorcet]

Well lets see.

First we start with Famine's definitonal standard of Scientific evidence.
Totally unbiased, unprejudicial, and unimpeachable.


I don't have to present any evidence of Creationism's like or same kind reproduction,
because it is proved out everyday in literally billions of examples going back as far as any reasonable determination can be made.

No

Quite the opposite, it is clear that the above is false. Repeatedly, I've asked what these limits are. I have received no answer. Supposedly they are "clear" and "obvious". Yet no one on earth has documented any such limits.

Have you ever watched a forest grow? Water boil? A really annoying loading bar that takes forever? If you watch any of these for a short while you're not going to see a lot of progress. Does that mean that no progress is happening? Of course not. The trees are growing, the water is warming, and the computer's hard drive is read data (hopefully).

When a moth goes from white to black, that's evolution. Evolution doesn't say a moth will go moth to horse in one generation. That's ridiculous. Evolution does not have a set of target species. Organisms get a string of genes, and evolution does what it wants with those genes, basically leaving no limit on what can evolve. You probably won't ever see moth to horse, but you might see moth to purple winged bug to purple winged bug with arms to purple winged bug with arms and intelligence. Much like mammals gave rise to humans. It did not go squirrel -> pig -> chimp -> human. It was one continuous process where the small differences between generations (that you claim are limited) built up and made a larger delta in total than they did at each step.

You, I and all life around us are examples of the absolute consistent repeatability of it.
It is clearly and unequivocally, the completely substantiatable, quintessential, scientific standard.

No

Science is not blind enough to rely only on eyesight. Nor does it go from observation (static species is not observed anyway) to fact. There must be validation inbetween. How pitiful we would be if we studied atoms by naked eye sight. We would not have quantum mechanics. We would never have predicted half of the known particles. The electromagnetic spectrum would be very thin. No one has seen the interior of the Sun, but we know what's there.

It's like I've said before, all you need is restraints. Seeing might be believing, but it isn't science. Ancient people saw birds fly, they saw that birds had feathers, and they thought that feathers were magic. You can probably even find stories of people trying to fly with feathers right up to the Wright Brothers. We know that everyone who tried to fly with feathers failed. The "obvious" fact that feathers = flight does not stand up to science. Aerodynamic theory says nothing about requiring feathers. Had these people not gone about things with your methodology (where fact comes without proof) they probably would have figured out that feathers don't work.

In fact I contend if it were not Biblically based, it would already be, as is clearly established, akin to gravity, and a law.

Just so you know, a theory is higher than a law. Laws are sub components of theories.

A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a fundamental principle of science, like Newton's law of universal gravitation. A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions, and implies a causal relationship between its elements. The law must be confirmed and broadly agreed upon through the process of inductive reasoning. As well, factual and well-confirmed statements like "Mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure" are considered to be too specific to qualify as scientific laws. A central problem in the philosophy of science, going back to David Hume, is that of distinguishing scientific laws from principles that arise merely accidentally because of the constant conjunction of one thing and another.[1]

A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to constant currents, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc.

The term "scientific law" is traditionally associated with the natural sciences, though the social sciences also contain scientific laws.[2] Laws can become obsolete if they are found in contradiction with new data, as with Bode's law or the biogenetic law.

Also evolution would have disproved the "law of like species".

And because it's not been said enough

Originally the word theory as it is used in English is a technical term from Ancient Greek philosophy. It is derived from theoria, θεωρία, meaning "a looking at, viewing, beholding", and refers to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action.[1] Theory is especially often contrasted to "practice" (from Greek praxis, πρᾶξι&#962 an Aristotelian concept which is used in a broad way to refer to any activity done for the sake of action, in contrast with theory, which does need an aim which is an action. By extension of the philosophical meaning, "theoria" is also a word still used in theological contexts.

A classical example of the distinction between theoretical and practical uses the discipline of medicine: Medical theory and theorizing involves trying to understand the causes and nature of health and sickness, while the practical side of medicine is trying to make people healthy. These two things are related but can be independent, because it is possible to research health and sickness without curing specific patients, and it is possible to cure a patient without knowing how the cure worked.[2]

In modern contexts, while theories in the arts and philosophy may address ideas and empirical phenomena which are not easily measurable, in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or "falsify") it. In this modern scientific context the distinction between theory and practice corresponds roughly to the distinction between theoretical science and technology or applied science. A common distinction sometimes made in science is between theories and hypotheses, with the former being considered as satisfactorily tested or proven and the latter used to denote conjectures or proposed descriptions or models which have not yet been tested or proven to the same standard.

Now for Evolutionary Theory.
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.

No

I'm waiting for your obvious limits on the changes that organisms undergo.

I'm also waiting (but not holding my breath) for someone to make a good argument against fossils, genetics, and evolution observed in labs and in nature.

So having retreated to part and parcel of evolution, for some evidentiary ground, references are made to mutation, adaptation, similarites, commonalites, and natural selection.
While this can be claimed as evidence for evolution, it is certainly not revolutionary.
Rather it is easily assimilated into, and part of, the established like or same kind reproduction.
This is where evidentiary substantiation ends by the way.

So mutations and adaptations are evidence for species remaining essentially the same forever? That's mind blowing. It's also illogical.

Now using the scientific standard as described above , which of these two explanations can be reasonably considered to have the weightier evidence of proof.

I think the answer is pretty obvious.

Evolution. By far.

To the contrary, staying within the confines of scientific method, the limitation is upheld.
For such a scientific fellow, how do you fail to realize, once you cross over to abstract time periods, you leave the confines of scientific method.
Of course thats why its still a "theory".

The stone age is long past. The past is not some mysterious incomprehensible place. We know enough that we can put restraints on past events without having seen them. The Greeks wrote that some guy dipped in a pool of water was unable to be cut by swords, except his heel. We weren't in ancient Greece, so I guess the story is true right?

Finally, to make it easier to answer my unasnwered questions, here are some past posts of mine, questions in bold.

Scientific it is, as it's backed up by evolution. There is virtually zero chance that flies will be replaced with some other species tomorrow morning, but the probability that modern flies will be around in 1,000,000 year is not 100%.

Conclusive; what part of evolution says anything about knowing exactly what something will evolve into. The future is an unknown currently. If modern flies are the best suited to survive the next million years, then flies might not change much at all.



No it does not. You're inferring that it does.

What we have:

There are organisms > They undergo changes

What you [want to] see:

There are organisms > They undergo changes > These changes stop at some limit.

There is no observed limit, and I have not seen an attempt to define/show/point out this limit (ie, no one is spelling out what exactly can and cannot change in an organism).

Also, I'm being unfair to myself because I'm ignoring the fossil record in the "What we have" folder up there.

Going back to the computer screen example. If you watch the screen for a year, and see only 52 pixels fade, you cannot conclude that 52 pixels is the maximum number of pixels that can die on the screen. You only know that pixels can fade, and the logical conclusion is to assume that all the pixels can eventually fade. Especially if you can dig up old monitors in the garbage dump that are completely, or nearly completed faded./

Again you mention limits but forget to tell us what they are. If they're so clearly observable, you should be able to list them right?



Is history a fraud?

No one has watched a species over 10,000,000 years in person and seen it evolve. So what? All you need to determine something is constraints. We know organisms can change. There is no observed limit to these changes. We know that fossils come from dead organisms. These fossils all share similarities that we can trace back pretty far in time (and accurately too, with carbon dating, etc). Evolution fits like a glove.

It's true that that does not rule out the idea that we're all someone else's dream and that things only "look" the way they do, but if that was the case it wouldn't matter because we could never prove/disprove it and there would be no reason to pay it any mind.



You're forgetting mutations. And mules.

Seems you did answer to mules, but

A mule is an exception, as well as a dead end.

This only further disproves creationism then. Being an unexplained exception does not make it OK. You basically just said that "the like kinds" hypothesis is wrong.

You are right that mules don't reproduce, but that fact does nothing to weaken evolution. The mule did not evolve, it was bred.

 

[DK]

Explaining evolution to hardened creationists (I can't name and shame here) is going to be like explaining the process of abortion to Sarah Palin. Plus, the hardened creationists probably think of Wikipedia as a centre for godless, atheistic propaganda, while Conservapedia is relatively unblemished.

 

[AndersonG22]

I would like to thank ledhed for creating a thread that turned out to be really funny. It gave me a better understanding of modern creationists. Id like to declare a 5 second moment of silence after you read the post. Please, think of the funny comments that made you lol while you pay your respects. I think we all learned alot from this thread, particularly about how stubborn people are.

RIP you funny bastard(the thread only had 1 parent).

 

[Lain]

Found a great quote today:

Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

But, you have repeatedly said (and you have been politely asked repeatedly to clarify this point) that there's a difference between "like" and "same" kinds. It's a massive and utterly key difference, hence why it is so important that you answer the questions put to you, such as:

I have already explained this:

Distinctions are made in the Creation account, but are not specifically detailed.
Therefore, from that point forward, as said, it is open to some degree of interpretation.

I also already said: I believe this is reserved to breeds and varieties based on the historical record of reality.
But in view of, the lack of specific details, I do not know for sure.
For example, did he make one pair of cats from which all others descended, or several species of cats from which all breeds and varieties came.
Either way, depending on definition, one pair could still be considered, "like kind".

You insist that speciation is limited to occuring within 'kinds', but you've been repeatedly asked you to explain how that can be and to show some evidence that this is the case. Unfortunately, all you do is repeat the same statements and refuse (or more likely are unable) to show any evidence to support your hypothesis.

I find this repeated question unbelievable.
This is unmistakenly demonstrated umpteen million times in the reproduction of life, again of which you and all the rest of us are a product of, going back as far as can reasonably be determined.
Yet the historic record of reality is not scientific enough for you?

You have also been shown evidence that supports the opposing hypothesis - that different 'kinds' arose through common descent - several times already. That different 'kinds' exhibit such massive genetic similarities (as well as key differences) is, whether you like it or not, perfectly explained by the common descent hypothesis. It is also very strong evidence to refute the idea that speciation is limited to occuring within the boundaries of 'kinds'.

It is only evidence for the possibility, not of conclusive fact.
These similarities you point out are just as evidentiary for common Creator and common elements.

If you want your ideas to be taken even remotely seriously, you need to show evidence that supports your hypothesis and refutes the opposing hypothesis. Your continued failure to do this, or to even address some of the questions that I and others have specifically asked you, only leads me to believe that you simply don't have anything to show.

To the contrary IMO, it is a failure of, objective comprehension and interpretation of evidence, not lack of.

 

[DK]

This is what I think of both sides in the argument.

Let's say that a corpse represents the universe. The time it died represents the Big Bang.

A crime scene investigation team discover the corpse and discover multiple wounds. They look for evidence, and come up with a conclusion after examining the body.

The other side is the equivalent of your stereotypical bigoted cop from the Deep South blaming it on a Mexican guy as soon as he sees the body, and he goes off to "interpret" (read: twist) the evidence in such a way that he thinks it backs up his hypothesis.

 

[Touring Mars]

I have already explained this:

Distinctions are made in the Creation account, but are not specifically detailed.

That would be the understatement of the century.

Therefore, from that point forward, as said, it is open to some degree of interpretation.

You say open to interpretation, I say open to testing by the scientific method, and guess what...

I also already said: I believe this is reserved to breeds and varieties based on the historical record of reality.
But in view of, the lack of specific details, I do not know for sure.

Then you need to broaden your outlook. I'm not saying your view of the 'historical record of reality' (by which I take it you mean 'like produces like') is incorrect, but I am saying that it is incomplete, and there is overwhelming evidence to support this.

Yet the historic record of reality is not scientific enough for you?

Not as you seem to be defining 'historical reality', no. It is not enough. 'Scientific enough' means accounting for all the evidence, not just the small fraction that fits your story. Evolution theory agrees with your view that like produces like, but only to a point - it also goes much further, because the evidence compels it to go much further.

These similarities you point out are just as evidentiary for common Creator and common elements.

No, they are not. Of all the possible patterns of genetic distribution in the natural world, only the tiniest fraction would support common descent, whilst every possible combination could be (and is) cited as supporting the creation hypothesis. That actual patterns observed in nature fit the common descent hypothesis is simply not possible by chance - that it also fits the creation hypothesis is unavoidable!

The key difference between the common descent hypothesis and the creation hypothesis is falsifiability. Since every possible result would support the creation hypothesis, it is not falsifiable, and therefore it is of no scientific merit or importance. That observed patterns of genetic distribution happen to occur within the tiny fraction of possibilities that do not falsify the common descent hypothesis is what gives that hypothesis scientific merit.

 

[Exorcet]

I find this repeated question unbelievable.
This is unmistakenly demonstrated umpteen million times in the reproduction of life, again of which you and all the rest of us are a product of, going back as far as can reasonably be determined.
Yet the historic record of reality is not scientific enough for you?

I find your repeated answer unbelievable. When the very history you're pointing out is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for evolution, I don't see how you can convince yourself that it's proof of creationism. I am proof of evolution. My family is proof of evolution. Every living thing I see is proof of evolution. All of my genes, and thus my traits, came from my ancestors. I can't find another me in my family tree. I am a unique combination of genetic code, and there is no poorly defined limit on what my genes could have been.

Go back far enough, and you don't even see people. You can find organisms with traits similar to humans (two arms, two legs, etc), but they aren't human. We know they only lived during certain time periods, and we also know that if we take a specimen from any one reference point and move far away in time, the organisms we see resemble the reference organism less and less.

It's pretty obvious which theory has been demonstrated to the umpteenth degree. It's evolution. And as long as you insist otherwise with zero evidence, you're not going to look very credible.