What's the best evidence for evolution?

[GourmetDan]

It is not a "rationalization" to use a demonstrable fact in an explanation. All human knowledge, including science, involves assumptions. Your ignorance on such a fundamental point only confirms, yet again, that you are not qualified to comment on this topic.

Sure it is. Rationalizations are ways to make an explanation seem plausible.

Rationalizing is to "ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes." Dictionary.com

"Rationalization is to provide an explanation for an event, person, or idea that is within reason and that is acceptable. Sometimes people give rationalization for things that don't go their way to make them feel better." Ask.com

All you are doing is rationalizing observations to conform to your belief. That is obvious.



Perfect! You have exposed the fundamental logical fallacy of your position. You are equivocating on the word "believe" -

If it isn't observed, it isn't science... it is belief. Especially if it applies to assumed, unobserved events. Applying the fallacy of affirming the consequent to observations makes them beliefs. That is not science.




1) Scientific belief: To affirm a conclusion based on demonstrable logic and facts.

2) Religious belief: To believe in totally insane bullshit with no valid justification of any kind.


No, your definition of scientific belief is the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. As I said, logic includes logical fallacy.

Your 2) is simply the fallacy of appeal to ridicule.




This is one of the most common tactics used by the corrupt creationists. You know there is no evidence for your position, so you try to level the playing field by dragging down science to your ludicrous level of unjustified belief like every good cult member. By your standard, you have no more reason to be a Christian than a Muslim or a Mormon or a Scientologist. All beliefs are the "same." You are insane, simple as that.

I didn't say "All beliefs are the "same." That is you misrepresenting what I said in order to spew more ridicule. I said, "The only greater irony is an evolutionist not realizing that their beliefs are no better than the creationist they so despise... "

Telling people "you are not qualified to comment on this topic" is an attempt to shift the conversation to a discussion on who is the most 'qualified'. This is a tiny little logical circle where evolution is assumed to be true because all the scientists believe it is true. Many people see right through that little fallacy.

This proves that evolution has its own set of 'priests' who must be believed because they are 'qualified' and all the 'little people' just need to believe and repeat what they are told. No different than a religion, really.

[GourmetDan]

Anyone who knows how to read understands that the order of creation that Genesis lays out starting at Day 1 and continuing to Day 7 is not an assumption ... it's what the authors believed and the text says.

I thought it was obvious that I was referring to the order that you assumed to be true and presented as some kind of 'evidence' against the order in the Bible. Guess not.



I must say you are the perfect example of someone who seems to have very little scientific knowledge, yet makes the huge assumption that the Bible is true without any evidence.

Said the poster who posted arguments that demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of what science is... :lmbo:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Sure it is. Rationalizations are ways to make an explanation seem plausible.

Rationalizing is to "ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes." Dictionary.com

"Rationalization is to provide an explanation for an event, person, or idea that is within reason and that is acceptable. Sometimes people give rationalization for things that don't go their way to make them feel better." Ask.com

All you are doing is rationalizing observations to conform to your belief. That is obvious.

Not true. The reasons I gave are not "superficial" but rather demonstrably true as anyone with a half a brain can easily see for themselves. You are lost in an utterly delusional world in which you think that the universe is on the order of ten thousand years old and the earth sits motionless at its center. Your beliefs are totally nuts and utterly indefensible. Simple as that.



If it isn't observed, it isn't science... it is belief. Especially if it applies to assumed, unobserved events. Applying the fallacy of affirming the consequent to observations makes them beliefs. That is not science.

Your comments are totally disconnected from reality. You are obsessed with irrational "fallacies" to the point of utter absurdity.



No, your definition of scientific belief is the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. As I said, logic includes logical fallacy.

There is no fallacy in basing conclusions on logic and facts. Your assertions are as absurd as they are unfounded.



Your 2) is simply the fallacy of appeal to ridicule.

There is no "fallacy" in ridiculing your ridiculous assertions.



I didn't say "All beliefs are the "same." That is you misrepresenting what I said in order to spew more ridicule. I said, "The only greater irony is an evolutionist not realizing that their beliefs are no better than the creationist they so despise... "

Ha! That's pretty funny coming from you since I have demonstrated that your entire thesis is based on ludicrous misrepresentations of established science.

The beliefs of creationists deserve to be ridiculed because they are ridiculous, as well as fundamentally dishonest, deceptive, and corrupt.



Telling people "you are not qualified to comment on this topic" is an attempt to shift the conversation to a discussion on who is the most 'qualified'. This is a tiny little logical circle where evolution is assumed to be true because all the scientists believe it is true. Many people see right through that little fallacy.

I merely stated the fact that you have declared yourself to be utterly unqualified to comment on the subject because you have admitted that you have not bothered to educate yourself about the basic evidence supporting evolution. You are like a moronic hill billy who cannot add 1 + 2 but who thinks he can refute calculus. Simply stated, your delusion is pathetic in the most literal sense - you are pitiful because you have corrupted your mind in service of falsehood.



This proves that evolution has its own set of 'priests' who must be believed because they are 'qualified' and all the 'little people' just need to believe and repeat what they are told. No different than a religion, really.
There you go again - demonstrating the utter corruption of your mind, as when you referred to scientific textbooks as the "scripture" of those who do not share your delusions. How freaking pathetic.

[GourmetDan]

Not true. The reasons I gave are not "superficial" but rather demonstrably true as anyone with a half a brain can easily see for themselves. You are lost in an utterly delusional world in which you think that the universe is on the order of ten thousand years old and the earth sits motionless at its center. Your beliefs are totally nuts and utterly indefensible. Simple as that.

As anyone with half a brain can easily see for themselves, they are only 'demonstrably true' if you engage in the fallacy of affirming the consequent.




Your comments are totally disconnected from reality. You are obsessed with irrational "fallacies" to the point of utter absurdity.

Your comments are totally disconnected from reality. You are obsessed with using fallacy to 'support' your worldview to the point of utter absurdity.



There is no fallacy in basing conclusions on logic and facts. Your assertions are as absurd as they are unfounded.


The fallacy of affirming the consequent is exactly that. The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.



There is no "fallacy" in ridiculing your ridiculous assertions.


Your ridiculous assertions are full of logical fallacy, however.




Ha! That's pretty funny coming from you since I have demonstrated that your entire thesis is based on ludicrous misrepresentations of established science.


What's even more funny is you claiming to have demonstrated anything...




The beliefs of creationists deserve to be ridiculed because they are ridiculous, as well as fundamentally dishonest, deceptive, and corrupt.


I have demonstrated that the beliefs of evolutionists are firmly based in logical fallacy. Refusing to acknowledge such is fundamentally dishonest, deceptive, and corrupt.



I merely stated the fact that you have declared yourself to be utterly unqualified to comment on the subject because you have admitted that you have not bothered to educate yourself about the basic evidence supporting evolution. You are like a moronic hill billy who cannot add 1 + 2 but who thinks he can refute calculus. Simply stated, your delusion is pathetic in the most literal sense - you are pitiful because you have corrupted your mind in service of falsehood.


I merely stated the fact that you have shown yourself to be utterly unqualified to comment on the subject because you insist on relying on logical fallacy as evidence for evolution. You are like a moronic uberaffe who cannot tell the difference between reason and fallacy and thinks his beliefs are somehow scientific. Simply stated, your delusion is pathetic in every sense - you are pitiful because you have chosen to believe a lie when the truth is right before you.




There you go again - demonstrating the utter corruption of your mind, as when you referred to scientific textbooks as the "scripture" of those who do not share your delusions. How freaking pathetic.

And again you demonstrate the utter corruption of your mind, preferring to believe scientific textbooks as though they are inerrant scripture against those who do not share your delusions. How freaking pathetic.

[FreeThinka]

The origin of DNA and the first cell is still a mystery. God could have done it for all I know, though I would be surprised if it didn't evolve through natural chemical evolution. But that's totally irrelevant to the theory of evolution which is the theory that explains the evolution of living organisms. The evidence strongly supports the idea that all living organisms descended from a common ancestor. So it doesn't matter if God created the first cell - that wouldn't affect a single fact about the theory of evolution.

And yes, Snickers are the bomb! Yum. :sunny:

Hi Richard. If we are talking evolutionary transitions then the Archaeopteryx. This was discovered in 1861 and to wit only a few years after Darwin published is "Origin of the Species." Of course the role of this Archaeopteryx has been debated since then. Huxley saw that this was an intermediate form. The key thing to notice here is:

(1). It had the characteristics of a bird, feathers and wings.
(2). It also had reptilian characteristics.

It should be noted that since that time seven more have been found thus validating Huxley's theory.

You can read more here:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

Michael Benton, Ph.D., is a vertebrate palaeontologist with interests in dinosaur origins and fossil history. He holds the Chair in Vertebrate Palaeontology at the University of Bristol, UK, in addition to chairing the Masters program in palaeobiology at the university. He has written some 30 books on dinosaurs and palaeobiology, ranging from professional tomes to popular kids’ books.
http://www.gly.bris.ac.uk/www/admin/personnel/MJB.html

[jce]

Hey there John,

Your comment is fallacious on three points. First, speciation has been observed and is an established scientific fact. You would know this if you had any interest in truth and reality because the evidence is available to anyone with an internet connection (which you obviously have).

Second, your distinction between micro and macro evolution is misleading. Macro-evolution is simply the result of long term micro-evolution in non-interacting gene pools. And as noted above, it has been observed in nature.

Third, your distinction between "facts" and "theory" reveals a profound failure to understand the meaning of the word "theory" in a scientific context. A THEORY is an explanation of a body of FACTS. E.g. the theory of gravity explains the observed facts relating to gravity. It is not a "guess" or "hypothesis" as your comment suggests. Your comment makes no sense because theories (which are explanations of facts) cannot become facts by "laboratory tests." The laboratory tests produce FACTS which either may or may not be explained by the theory. The validity of the theory depends upon how well it explains the facts.

All the best,

Richard

Hello Richard

I thought I would post my response over here where it belongs rather than muck up the topic thread on the Real Great Flood.

Regarding your point 1 fallacy: When you assert that speciation takes place, I assume you are referring to what I would consider minor progressive changes within a biological group such as the insect group. I believe insects to be one of the "Kinds" as referenced in Genesis and not a product from another kind. I have no argument with genetic adaptations within types. Such change over time is micro within it's own kind.

Regarding your point 3 fallacy: If we can't do it in a laboratory with all of the high sanitation environments and genetic engineering tools available to our highly intelligent species (humans), how could these things have occurred by themselves in an unsanitary environment and that without pre-planted genetic data by someone much wiser than us?

Regarding your point 2 fallacy: You state that theories are constructed on bodies of facts. If so, then please examine the following presentation of the theory of the origin of flight within the insect kinds. Keep in mind that this is on the adaptation of insects. From insect to insect, micro progress within just this one kind of creature. Since so many uncertainties still exist within this transition, it is no wonder that one must marvel at the proposition that all life on this planet evolved by chance (from molecules to mankind) under this same scheme.

The following proposition on the "Origin of Flight" in the insect world is just one of many similar propositions for the other "Kinds" that are set forth in the theory of evolution.


Origin of insect flight

The origin of insect flight remains obscure, since the earliest winged insects currently known appear to have been capable fliers. Some extinct insects (e.g. the Palaeodictyoptera) had an additional pair of winglets attached to the first segment of the thorax, for a total of three pairs.

My Take: Synonyms for "Obscure": ambiguous, cloudy, equivocal, inexplicit, uncertain, unclear, vague.

The wings themselves are sometimes said to be highly modified (tracheal) gills.[citation needed]

My Take: Some seem to say that insect wings are highly modified gills. What do others think? Looks like Wiki could use some help with a citation on this.

And there is no doubt that the tracheal gills of the mayfly nymph in many species look like wings.[citation needed]


My Take: Just because gills "look like wings", is that enough to imply that they must be the forerunner of wings? Wiki could use another citation here too.

By comparing a well-developed pair of gill blades in the naiads and a reduced pair of hind wings on the adults, it is not hard to imagine that the mayfly gills (tergaliae) and insect wings have a common origin, and newer research also supports this.[citation needed]

My Take: Is that all it takes is a little imagination and "poof".... there you have it? Newer research supports this imagination but another citation is needed.

The tergaliae are not found in any other order of insects, and they have evolved in different directions with time. In some nymphs/naiads the most anterior pair has become sclerotized and works as a gill cover for the rest of the gills. Others can form a large sucker, be used for swimming or modified into other shapes. But it doesn't have to mean that these structures were originally gills. It could also mean that the tergaliae evolved from the same structures which gave rise to the wings, and that flying insects evolved from a wingless terrestrial species with pairs of plates on its body segments: three on the thorax and nine on the abdomen (mayfly nymphs with nine pairs of tergaliae on the abdomen exist, but so far no living or extinct insects with plates on the last two segments have been found).

My Take: Missing in the fossil record, probably some of the 999 missing out of every 1,000.


If these were primary gills, it would be a mystery why they should have waited so long to be modified when we see the different modifications in modern mayfly nymphs.

My Take: Just one more evolutionary mystery.


Following is from Wiki about multiple theories on the origin of insect flight:


Theories[edit]


When the first forests arose on Earth, new niches for terrestrial animals were created. Spore-feeders and others who depended on plants and/or the animals living around them would have to adapt too to make use of them. In a world with no flying animals, it would probably just be a matter of time before some arthropods who were living in the trees evolved paired structures with muscle attachments from their exoskeleton and used them for gliding, one pair on each segment. Further evolution in this direction would give bigger gliding structures on their thorax and gradually smaller ones on their abdomen. Their bodies would have become stiffer while thysanurans, which didn't evolve flight, kept their flexible abdomen.

My Take: So what are the actual mathematical probabilities?


Mayfly nymphs must have adapted to water while they still had the "gliders" on their abdomen intact. So far there is no concrete evidence to support this theory either, but it is one that offers an explanation for the problems of why presumably aquatic animals evolved in the direction they did.

My Take: "Must have", "no concrete evidence", "problems", presumably". Such words are found in many of the evolutionary propositions.


Leaping and arboreal insects seems like a good explanation for this evolutionary process for several reasons. Because early winged insects were lacking the sophisticated wing folding mechanism of neopterous insects, they must have lived in the open and not been able to hide or search for food under leaves, in cracks, under rocks and other such confined spaced. In these old forests there weren't many open places where insects with huge structures on their back could have lived without experiencing huge disadvantages.

My Take: "Seems like a good explanation"? Really? is that it?


If insects got their wings on land and not in water, which clearly seems to be the case, the tree canopies would be the most obvious place where such gliding structures could have emerged, in a time when the air was a new territory.

My take: Note the words "if" and "could have". Simply put, more uncertainty about how, when and where.



My conclusion: All too often assumptions must be inserted because of the lack of data and other proofs. So why should anyone be labeled a "hillbilly" or "creationist liar" when questions are raised about evolution? Especially when so little is yet known about the "how, when and where" of evolutionary transitions. Although the fossil record lacks 999 out of every 1,000 transitional forms (which should be there), it is still often alluded to in evolutionary discussion and papers.

The macro evolutionary theory is not only circular in its reference to itself, but is also constructed on shifting sand with no reasonable explanation for the origin of life, without which there would be nothing to theorize about. The proposition of macro evolution without a basis for origin is akin to "something from nothing" which is an achievement that could only be accomplished by God.

Richard, please don't weary yourself with a reply since I do not post these things for your edification or rebuttal nor for the rebuttal of others, but rather to encourage those interested in learning more about the science of evolutionary theory to examine closely the wording in these presentations and to pay special attention to the numerous words that are often substituted and used synonymously with the word "uncertain".

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Richard

I thought I would post my response over here where it belongs rather than muck up the topic thread on the Real Great Flood.

Hey there John, :yo:

Starting a new thread was a good idea. Most threads end up digressing into a thousand different topics.

:signthankspin:



Regarding your point 1 fallacy: When you assert that speciation takes place, I assume you are referring to what I would consider minor progressive changes within a biological group such as the insect group. I believe insects to be one of the "Kinds" as referenced in Genesis and not a product from another kind. I have no argument with genetic adaptations within types. Such change over time is micro within it's own kind.

Could you please give a definition of "kind" that would be meaningful in a scientific context? From your comments, the word does not appear to have any meaning. How does it relate to the scientific concept of species? Here is a working definition that should suffice for our discussion (source (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VADefiningSpecies.shtml)):

A species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. In this sense, a species is the biggest gene pool possible under natural conditions.

Your idea that insects are properly classified as one "kind" makes no sense of any "kind" to me at all (pardon the pun, I couldn't resist). Are you really saying that ants, beetles, centipedes, dragonflies, earwigs, fleas, grasshoppers ... etc., etc., etc. are ALL one "kind"?



Regarding your point 3 fallacy: If we can't do it in a laboratory with all of the high sanitation environments and genetic engineering tools available to our highly intelligent species (humans), how could these things have occurred by themselves in an unsanitary environment and that without pre-planted genetic data by someone much wiser than us?

I think you meant my point 2, which concerned micro vs. macro evolution. The answer is simple. We can prove the power of selection by breeding animals. Look at how quickly we have been able to produce the vast variety of dogs from a single common ancestor. This is the product of "artificial selection" for traits we prefered. It is directly analogous to natural selection which "prunes" the gene pool according to who survives to reproduce. Nothing could be more simple or obvious (or so it seems to me).



Regarding your point 2 fallacy: You state that theories are constructed on bodies of facts. If so, then please examine the following presentation of the theory of the origin of flight within the insect kinds. Keep in mind that this is on the adaptation of insects. From insect to insect, micro progress within just this one kind of creature. Since so many uncertainties still exist within this transition, it is no wonder that one must marvel at the proposition that all life on this planet evolved by chance (from molecules to mankind) under this same scheme.

I think you meant point three, which concerned the meaning of "theory" in a scientific context.

The article you cited is not relevant because it is an example of HYPOTHESES that cannot yet be TESTED against FACTS because we we don't have the requisite EVIDENCE. This should have been obvious to you in the words that you highlighted. If you want to discuss established scientific theories, then start with something like GENETICS and DNA which provides solid, HARD EVIDENCE for evolution.

Great chatting!

Richard

:sunny:

[David M]

Hello John

I think there is an opening for someone to compile a glossary of all words used by Evolutionists indicating uncertainty and vagueness

Evolutionists have a form of jargon like real estate agents do.

A glossary of words conveying uncertainty or vagueness would be helpful to Evolutionists to add greater variety to their vocabulary when writing their articles. It becomes boring for us all to keep reading the word "probably" when there is a wide selection of words and phrases to use.

Just think that for this one word "probably", we have the following to choose from;

apparently
doubtless
no doubt
perhaps
possibly
presumably

seemingly
believably
plausibly
as likely as not
as the case may be

assumably
dollars to doughnuts
expediently
feasibly
imaginably

in all likelihood
in all probability
like enough
maybe
most likely
one can assume

perchance
practicably
presumptively
reasonably
to all appearances

Unless someone compiles the book, it will take a very, very, very .... very long time to evolve, or take millions of chimpanzees typing furiously to maybe produce such a work and in the process they might produce the works of Shakespeare instead. Typical, you cannot rely on chimpanzees to do what you want.


David

[David M]

Could you please give a definition of "kind" that would be meaningful in a scientific context?

Hello Richard

Rose explained to me that species diversified into separate groups where those groups could no longer interbreed. Even if Rose does not like to use the word "Kind" to define those groups,that is what they are; Kinds.

David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I believe insects to be one of the "Kinds" as referenced in Genesis and not a product from another kind.



Hello Richard

Rose explained to me that species diversified into separate groups where those groups could no longer interbreed. Even if Rose does not like to use the word "Kind" to define those groups,that is what they are; Kinds.

David
Hey there David,

I think you missed the point that John was making. I was responding to his assertion that all the millions of species of insects are one "kind." Therefore, a single "kind" cannot be a single species. That's why I asked John to clarify.

Glad to have you in the conversation.

Richard

[CWH]

Hey there David,

I think you missed the point that John was making. I was responding to his assertion that all the millions of species of insects are one "kind." Therefore, a single "kind" cannot be a single species. That's why I asked John to clarify.

Glad to have you in the conversation.

Richard
I have look through a dictionary for the word Kind and this is what it says and it is synonymous with order, genus, species; race, breed; set:


noun
1. a class or group of individual objects, people, animals, etc., of the same nature or character, or classified together because they have traits in common; category: Our dog is the same kind as theirs.
2. nature or character as determining likeness or difference between things: These differ in degree rather than in kind.
3. a person or thing as being of a particular character or class: He is a strange kind of hero.
4. a more or less adequate or inadequate example of something; sort: The vines formed a kind of roof.
5. Archaic.
a. the nature, or natural disposition or character.
b. manner; form.
6. Obsolete . gender; sex.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
before 900; Middle English kinde, Old English gecynd nature, race, origin; cognate with Old Norse kyndi, Old High German kikunt, Latin gēns (genitive gentis ); see kin

Synonyms
1. order, genus, species; race, breed; set.

A good example is Mankind meaning the Human species. The word species don't exist during Moses's time and the best word to describe species was Kind. According to its kind means according to their order, genus, species; race, breed; set. Examples describe in the Bible are:

Genesis 1: Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

God Bless.:pray:

[David M]

Hey there David,

I think you missed the point that John was making. I was responding to his assertion that all the millions of species of insects are one "kind." Therefore, a single "kind" cannot be a single species. That's why I asked John to clarify.

Glad to have you in the conversation.

Richard

Hello Richard

Insects are a different kind to animals. Creation does not mention the insects, though Proverbs 6:6 makes a good observation about ants.

Creation does not mention microbes, so there is a lot Creation does not tell us about the diversity of life necessary to sustain life.

Within insects, there must be different kinds of insects like in the animal kingdom where there are different kinds. If we did not have different kinds within insects, we would have an infinite amount of species as a result of interbreeding.

All the best
David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I have look through a dictionary for the word Kind and this is what it says and it is synonymous with order, genus, species; race, breed; set:

Hey there Cheow,

Are you saying that Noah brought two of every "kind" (species) of animal on the ark? There are millions of species. They wouldn't fit. That's why creationists have invented the idea of a "kind" as larger than a species. But that doesn't work because there would not have been time for all the species to evolve from the small number of "kinds" that would fit on the ark. This is one of the major problems with the flood story (as is obvious since creationists have had to go to great lengths to invent some sort of explanation).

Great chatting!

Richard

:sunny:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Richard

Insects are a different kind to animals. Creation does not mention the insects, though Proverbs 6:6 makes a good observation about ants.

Creation does not mention microbes, so there is a lot Creation does not tell us about the diversity of life necessary to sustain life.

Within insects, there must be different kinds of insects like in the animal kingdom where there are different kinds. If we did not have different kinds within insects, we would have an infinite amount of species as a result of interbreeding.

All the best
David

Hey there David,

Actually, insects are a kind of animal. Here's the Webster's definition:

1a : any of numerous small invertebrate animals (as spiders or centipedes) that are more or less obviously segmented —not used technically
1b : any of a class (Insecta) of arthropods (as bugs or bees) with well-defined head, thorax, and abdomen, only three pairs of legs, and typically one or two pairs of wings

When you say that insects are "a different kind to animals" it sounds like you are thinking only of vertebrates. And it doesn't make sense to say that insects are a "different kind to animals" because there are many kinds of animals such as reptiles, mammals, birds, insects, crustaceans, bacteria, etc., etc., etc.

Conversation about science requires a careful use of language.

When you say "Creation does not mention microbes" are you meaning "The book of Genesis does not mention microbes?" If so, then I totally agree that "there is a lot Creation does not tell us about the diversity of life." And much of what it does tell us is demonstrably false.

Your use of the word "kind" makes no sense to me. Does it have a scientific meaning? If so, how does it relate to species?

Great chatting,

Richard

[David M]

Hello Richard


Hey there David,

Actually, insects are a kind of animal. Here's the Webster's definition:

1a : any of numerous small invertebrate animals (as spiders or centipedes) that are more or less obviously segmented —not used technically
1b : any of a class (Insecta) of arthropods (as bugs or bees) with well-defined head, thorax, and abdomen, only three pairs of legs, and typically one or two pairs of wings

When you say that insects are "a different kind to animals" it sounds like you are thinking only of vertebrates. And it doesn't make sense to say that insects are a "different kind to animals" because there are many kinds of animals such as reptiles, mammals, birds, insects, crustaceans, bacteria, etc., etc., etc. I have given you Roses explanation for the origin of kinds. Any different kind cannot interbreed, Therefore insects, fish, birds, and beasts of the field are all animals then but are also of different kinds overall and within a group you call kind or species. The Bible says; after its kind. Bird are birds, fish are fish. That is simple to understand. Dogs are not cats and variation in dogs is not different kinds.


Conversation about science requires a careful use of language. That is exactly what I have said to you in another post. It is not just limited to science. Conversation requires careful use of language. Maybe L67 will consider that before he jumps on to the attack about the words I choose to use. None of us are perfect and we can correct each other without attacking each other.


When you say "Creation does not mention microbes" are you meaning "The book of Genesis does not mention microbes?" If so, then I totally agree that "there is a lot Creation does not tell us about the diversity of life." And much of what it does tell us is demonstrably false.That is correct. I simply meant the facts we are told in the Creation record does not mention all forms of life. However, once you class insects as animals, then you have insects covered.

I have thought about starting a thread at sometime the conversation reaches a lull; you need not answer now. Are there such things as demons (spirit forces). You know we have 21st century explanations by way of medical explanations for mental and bodily disease. There are those who hold that demons are some external spirit force entering a person. That demons are something living. Viruses could be considered external creatures that enter our body and viruses can be demons affecting the way people think and vocalize their illness, such as the one they called legion because of all the demons that were occupying him. Those who have these images of mythical spirit beings have to answer the question, who made them and why or how did they evolve?



Your use of the word "kind" makes no sense to me. Does it have a scientific meaning? If so, how does it relate to species? I have told you by Rose's explanation of the origin of "kinds". Kinds cannot interbreed. Rose thinks different "Kinds" evolved, and I think different kinds were created. Whoever is right, the kinds remain as fact and cannot interbreed.

All the best
David

[jce]

Hey there David,

I think you missed the point that John was making. I was responding to his assertion that all the millions of species of insects are one "kind." Therefore, a single "kind" cannot be a single species. That's why I asked John to clarify.

Glad to have you in the conversation.

Richard


Hey there John, :yo:

Could you please give a definition of "kind" that would be meaningful in a scientific context? From your comments, the word does not appear to have any meaning. How does it relate to the scientific concept of species? Here is a working definition that should suffice for our discussion (source (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VADefiningSpecies.shtml)):

Good morning Richard

Let me make an attempt to clarify what I mean by "Kinds". All of these little creatures that have been divided into millions of species by evolutionists, are they not generally referred to as "Insects"? Perhaps you would prefer the word "Bugs"? Either way, these creeping, crawling and flying little creatures all seem to have something in common with each other and are quite different from reptiles, birds, fish, etc. They are grouped together under the categorical term "Insects" because their existence represents a different "kind" to almost everyone else who observes them, or swats at them. lol.

What would really be enlightening Richard, is if you could breakdown the main differences that actually separate these bugs into the millions of insect species. Comparing bugs to bugs to find diversity must be much more difficult than comparing bugs to other creatures such as fish wherein the differences in "kind" are readily apparent and quite obvious.

John

[CWH]

Hey there Cheow,

Are you saying that Noah brought two of every "kind" (species) of animal on the ark? There are millions of species. They wouldn't fit. That's why creationists have invented the idea of a "kind" as larger than a species. But that doesn't work because there would not have been time for all the species to evolve from the small number of "kinds" that would fit on the ark. This is one of the major problems with the flood story (as is obvious since creationists have had to go to great lengths to invent some sort of explanation).

Great chatting!

Richard

:sunny:
Hi Richard,

This is a very common question which non-believers asked, "could Noah's Ark holds so many animals? I believe it os possible to hold many animals but we need to take into consideration many things:

1. We must exclude all marine creatures such as fishes and other creatures that could easily survive in water such as seals, crocodiles, amphibians etc.

2. We have to exclude insects as they could easily lived on living animals and in the ark and also on flotsams. We need to imagine there are "islands" of flotsams of trees, vegetations, debris and animal carcasses which may harbor insects, bugs and small animals. This is evident of the flotsams from the 2011 Japanese tsunami which reached the western shores of Canada and USA after 2 or 3 years. Exclude seabirds which can rest on the flotsams or on the outer deck of Noah's Ark.

3. It is plausible that there were other men on boats or some floating apparatus who were also saved as recorded in their local myths such as Gilgamesh and his dog of ? Persia. Australian Aborigines myth mentioned of a man saved from a global flood in a floating apparatus. Chinese myths mentioned such also. They may also bring some animals in their boats and floating apparatus.

4. We need to exclude huge dinosaurs and other animals which were already extinct during Noah's time about 4,000 years ago.

5. Noah's Ark was a huge boat, 3 storeys or more high about 450 feet X 75 feet and 45 feet high with a total deck area of 100,000 square feet or more which means that if each animal, or bird occupies an average of 1 sq feet it could easily accommodate 100,000 animals and birds, Not to mention also the space between the heights of each floor which could accommodate even more animals and birds.

6. We must understand also that many animals probably hibernated throughout the flood which accounts for the silence and uneventful events which the Bible did not mention. Thus there is no need for much food and fighting for territorial space.

7. Exclude animals which lived in cold polar regions such as polar bears, penguins etc. as snow were also expected to fall very heavily for forty days and nights and the flood water would become ice at the polar regions during the Great Flood.

8. We must understand that there was a layer of fresh water on top of the sea water if it rained for forty days and night thus keeping fresh water fishes and creatures alive.

9. Include micro-evolution of animals which God could easily have initiated post flood.

Please read on this article:

http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html

God Bless.:pray:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Richard

I have given you Roses explanation for the origin of kinds. Any different kind cannot interbreed, Therefore insects, fish, birds, and beasts of the field are all animals then but are also of different kinds overall and within a group you call kind or species. The Bible says; after its kind. Bird are birds, fish are fish. That is simple to understand. Dogs are not cats and variation in dogs is not different kinds.

Good morning David,

Yes, the Bible teaches that dogs give birth to dogs and cats give birth to cats is indeed "easy to understand." And it is also true. But it does not tell use what the word "kind" actually denotes. It's not a well defined term. The only reason we are talking about it is because some Christians use it as a broader category than "species" so they don't have to fit so many animals on the ark. But that won't work because then the species that weren't on the ark would have gone extinct.




Your use of the word "kind" makes no sense to me. Does it have a scientific meaning? If so, how does it relate to species?
I have told you by Rose's explanation of the origin of "kinds". Kinds cannot interbreed. Rose thinks different "Kinds" evolved, and I think different kinds were created. Whoever is right, the kinds remain as fact and cannot interbreed.

OK - so you must be defining "kind" as identical to "species." Does this mean you believe that Noah put millions of species on the ark? How would they fit?

Your idea that each different species was individually created by God makes no sense at all. They obviously evolved. That's why there are UNIQUE species in isolated places like Australia. Kaku mentioned this in the video you posted. Or are you saying that God carefully created each species to give illusion that evolution is true? That would be very deceptive. Why would he do that?

Great chatting!

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Good morning Richard

Let me make an attempt to clarify what I mean by "Kinds". All of these little creatures that have been divided into millions of species by evolutionists, are they not generally referred to as "Insects"? Perhaps you would prefer the word "Bugs"? Either way, these creeping, crawling and flying little creatures all seem to have something in common with each other and are quite different from reptiles, birds, fish, etc. They are grouped together under the categorical term "Insects" because their existence represents a different "kind" to almost everyone else who observes them, or swats at them. lol.

What would really be enlightening Richard, is if you could breakdown the main differences that actually separate these bugs into the millions of insect species. Comparing bugs to bugs to find diversity must be much more difficult than comparing bugs to other creatures such as fish wherein the differences in "kind" are readily apparent and quite obvious.

John
Good morning John, :yo:

Scientists have carefully categorized the differences between types of living organisms. The primary difference between "bugs" and other animals is that the bugs are INVERTEBRATES whereas reptiles, mammals, fish, and birds are vertebrates. Many bugs also have exoskeletons. And there are many other differences. I'm not sure why we are focusing on bugs. The point is that your use of the non-scientific and ill-defined term "kinds" makes no sense. It appears you are trying to find a way to rescue the story of the flood. But that won't work because either each species was on the ark or millions of new species quickly evolved after the flood .... or God did more magic and re-created all the species that died in the flood which would obviate the entire purpose of the story.

I really think you need to "bite the bullet" and deal with these facts John.

Great chatting!

Richard

:sunny:

[Rose]

Hi Richard,

This is a very common question which non-believers asked, "could Noah's Ark holds so many animals? I believe it os possible to hold many animals but we need to take into consideration many things:

1. We must exclude all marine creatures such as fishes and other creatures that could easily survive in water such as seals, crocodiles, amphibians etc.

2. We have to exclude insects as they could easily lived on living animals and in the ark and also on flotsams. We need to imagine there are "islands" of flotsams of trees, vegetations, debris and animal carcasses which may harbor insects, bugs and small animals. This is evident of the flotsams from the 2011 Japanese tsunami which reached the western shores of Canada and USA after 2 or 3 years. Exclude seabirds which can rest on the flotsams or on the outer deck of Noah's Ark.

3. It is plausible that there were other men on boats or some floating apparatus who were also saved as recorded in their local myths such as Gilgamesh and his dog of ? Persia. Aborigines myth mentioned of a man saved from a global flood in a floating apparatus. Chinese myths mentioned such also. They may also bring some animals in their boats and floating apparatus.

4. We need to exclude huge dinosaurs and other animals which were already extinct during Noah's time about 4,000 years ago.

5. Noah's Ark was a huge boat, 3 storeys or more high about 450 feet X 75 feet and 45 feet high with a total deck area of about 100,000 square feet which means that if each animal, or bird occupies an average of 1 sq feet it could easily accommodate 100,000 animals and birds, Not to mention also the space between the heights of each floor which could accommodate even more animals and birds.

6. We must understand also that many animals probably hibernated throughout the flood which accounts for the silence and uneventful events which the Bible did not mention. Thus there is no need for much food and fighting for territorial space.

7. Exclude animals which lived in cold polar regions such as polar bears, penguins etc. as snow were also expected to fall very heavily for forty days and nights and the flood water would become ice at the polar regions during the Great Flood.

8. We must understand that there was a layer of fresh water on top of the sea water if it rained for forty days and night thus keeping fresh water fishes and creatures alive.

9. Include micro-evolution of animals which God could easily have initiated post flood.

Please read on this article:

http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html

God Bless.:pray:

If all these different kinds of insects, animals and men survived by one means or another what was the point of the Bible saying that EVERY LIVING SUBSTANCE THAT GOD MADE HE WILL DESTROY? :hysterical:


Gen.6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Gen.6:12-13 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Gen.6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

Gen.7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

[CWH]

If all these different kinds of insects, animals and men survived by one means or another what was the point of the Bible saying that EVERY LIVING SUBSTANCE THAT GOD MADE HE WILL DESTROY? :hysterical:


Gen.6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Gen.6:12-13 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Gen.6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

Gen.7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

I have expected your question :p and I am glad to answer it.....never take everything in the Bible as absolute 100%. If 1 survived out of 100,000 or 99.999% killedit is still considered as all or everything has been killed. If Paul said that the Gospel has been preached to every creature in the world, so you really think Paul and the Christians has preached the gospel to every creature in the world? Luke said that a census has been taken of the whole world... is it really the whole world or the Roman world and did it really include everybody? This is also why Giants such as Goliath existed during the time of David; a remnant probably survived through the Great Flood.

God Bless.:pray:

[Rose]

I have expected your question :p and I am glad to answer it.....never take everything in the Bible as absolute 100%. If 1 survived out of 100,000 or 99.999% killedit is still considered as all or everything has been killed. If Paul said that the Gospel has been preached to every creature in the world, so you really think Paul and the Christians has preached the gospel to every creature in the world? Luke said that a census has been taken of the whole world... is it really the whole world or the Roman world and did it really include everybody? This is also why Giants such as Goliath existed during the time of David; a remnant probably survived through the Great Flood.

God Bless.:pray:

You got that right! "NEVER TAKE EVERYTHING IN THE BIBLE AS ABSOLUTE 100%" :hysterical:

Now you know why I don't believe in the Biblegod, I finally wised-up and quit believing everything I read in the Bible, and realized much of it was just made-up by primitive men who were ignorant of science.

[CWH]

You got that right! "NEVER TAKE EVERYTHING IN THE BIBLE AS ABSOLUTE 100%" :hysterical:

Now you know why I don't believe in the Biblegod, I finally wised-up and quit believing everything I read in the Bible, and realized much of it was just made-up by primitive men who were ignorant of science.
This has been discussed before and nothing went into your head. There are hyperboles and exaggerations in the Bible, therefore don't take every "everything" and "all" as absolutely 100% perhaps at 99% unless it has been specifically emphasized in the Bible such as Abraham asking God about the number of righteous persons in Sodom and Gommorah before God destroyed them. This is common in normal speech when all is not 100% absolute and most of us are guilty of that such as "all the ants have been killed after we sprayed the insecticide"....are you sure really all 100% absolute? The Bible is sometimes written as in normal verbatim. It is a known fact that many things in life is not 100% absolute. There is a thread "Is the world really the world" which perhaps readers may want to refer:

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?1535-Is-the-World-really-the-World&highlight=world+world

God Bless.:pray:

[Unregistered]

That video contains lies and misrepresentations. It is a perfect example of corrupt creationists. At 1:10 and again at 2:00 the narrator falsely asserts that no transitional forms have ever been found. THEY LIED. There are many transitional forms and anyone interested in the truth knows this because the information is freely available on the web. It is pathetic that this lie is found on the lips of countless Christians who have been deceived by the creationists.

Another deliberate deception in the video is their presentation of the "archeoraptor scandal" (2:50). In 1999 some Chinese people put together a fake fossil that was supposed to be a transitional form between reptiles and birds. The National Geographic was duped by those liars and published a report. Then SCIENCE came to the rescue and proved it was fake and so it was rejected. This is a perfect example of how science is supposed to work. No one can stop liars from lying, but science has a method that exposes lies and errors and so science ever advances towards the truth. Creationism is the opposite. The video presented the archeoraptor scandal as if it were proof that evolutionary scientists make a habit of deliberately falsifying the fossil record! That is not what happened. CREATIONISTS ARE LIARS! And they continue to spread their lies and they rarely if ever correct themselves. The continue to spread the same lies long after they have been exposed.

The proof is overwhelming. The whole creationist movement is utterly corrupt and filled with people willingly and knowingly lie.

There is a great irony here. The creationists who made the video claim to be Christians who worship the TRUTH in the person of Jesus Christ. But by their actions they show that they hate the truth. They have a contempt for the truth. And just as they claim to worship the TRUTH when they LIE, so they accuse evolutionist of LYING when they are in fact telling the truth. The creationists confirm that NO ONE should ever become a Christian or a Muslim or any other religion that corrupts the hearts and minds of believers. Creationists are the final nail in the coffin of religion. The lying freak Ergun Caner - who lied for ten years about being a former terrorist to make money off 9/11 - really helped free me from the confines of traditional Christianity. The fact that major Christian apologists like John Ankerberg and Norm Geisler colluded with Caner to cover the lies convinced me more. And when the leadership of Liberty U and the leadership f the Southern Baptist Convention and many hyper-fundamentalist Christian Ministries joined the ORGY OF LIES I knew it was time to quit Christianity altogether. I HATE LIARS in general, but there's nothing quite as disgusting as LIARS masquerading as those who "worship the truth" even as the LIE THROUGH THEIR TEETH.

ETA: At 7:00 the narrator equates "spontaneous generation" with "abiogensis"! Those are totally different concepts! The producers of the video are not only LIARS, they are also IGNORANT FREAKS that make UTTER FOOLS out of anyone who listens to them. They are a primary source of the mental corruption that we see in Christians all around the world. It is very interesting that this video contained this misrepresentation since it was the first point I refuted in the previous post about the "Law of Biogenesis" which creationists say contradicts evolution. I can't believe how these ludicrous absurdities have been spread into so many Christian minds. Creationism manifests the power of corruption that is innate within dogmatic religions like Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. The fact that the members of the religions have no way to clean up their own corruption makes a mockery of their claim that there religion is the only way to get "cleansed" by God.

Show me one complete transitional species. I don't think that is too much to ask. There is no proof whatsoever for any transitional species.