questioner121 wrote: You don't understand faith or maybe you have a different definition to the one I use. Faith is trust in God. In order to have trust in God you first need to have belief in God. For me it's hard having faith in something which may or may not exist. This is why I think a number of believers lose faith. They may see some priest do something bad or see other believers acting wrongly and their faith is shattered, or maybe they read about evolution and it makes sense to them and they see no point in having faith. But if you truly believe in God then no matter what happens you will always believe in God, even if that means the Bible or Koran or whatever scripture is proven to be wrong. However you may still lose your faith (trust in God) and keep your belief in God. This may happen if something really really bad happens in your life.
I am all for science, I love it. It's what I base my belief in God on. However I'm pretty weak in the faith department. The more science we do the more it will prove that there really is God. So I'm happy for science to get more funding so we can examine and discover more mysteries and determine the truth.
Well done. You've successfully passed the test and avoided a stay in Room 101.
A genuine question, Questioner121. What makes you think that disparate organisms belong to the same "kind"? By what measure do you determine, for example, that all dogs share a common ancestor?
I never said all dogs share a common ancestor which was the first dog. I just believe God created different kinds. He could have created hundreds of different types of dogs in the beginning but it would still be classed as one kind.
So contrary to what you asserted, as a creationist you do deny evolution within species? Funny as fuck since the different "types" of dog were primarily a result of artificial selection.
Again, I would like you to answer my question. How do you determine that disparate organisms belong to the same "kind"? On what grounds do you classify them as being related? By way of common ancestry or by classification.
I don't have a definition of kind. I would go by classification.
That's not an answer, it's a tautology. You are saying they are classified as belonging to the same "kind" because they are classified as belonging to the same kind.
If you cannot differentiate between differing "kinds" what hope is there for your assertion that one animal does not change from one "Kind" to another "Kind"?
My cat changed from the "Kind" that is sleeping on the sofa and before my eyes it changed to the "kind" that is meowing to be let outside. If you cannot define what your conception of a "kind" is you should consider your claim debunked.
Animavore wrote: What are the limitations which confine creatures to fixed "kinds"?
Not sure what you mean here but one thing is that one kind can't reproduce with another kind.
I'm talking about evolution. What stops a more chimp like ape, over time, becoming more straight, walking more upright, its brain enlarging and intelligence growing until it becomes a more human-like ape? What is the magical barrier?
I don't know but I believe there is barrier to stop kinds becoming other kinds. I'm not sure if there is a physical barrier as in the design of living organisms or whether it's something humans can't perceive.
Let me ask you, if some early primate did over time began walking straight and gradually got a bigger brain what was the population size and time frame.
Bribase wrote: If you cannot differentiate between differing "kinds" what hope is there for your assertion that one animal does not change from one "Kind" to another "Kind"?
The assertion is there because it's never been observed that one kind can evolve into another kind. We see examples of species evolution, no can deny that. However to see species evolve and adapt and then make the claim that it can eventually become a totally different over millions of years is merely an assumption with no credible evidence. Your fossil and DNA evidence proves nothing. It's meaningless. Evolutionists use that kind of evidence to dupe the public.
It's dishonest of evolutionists to state that evolution is a fact. They mix in evolution within species, which is a fact, with evolution across kinds of animals, which is an assumption. This isn't science it's propaganda.
Animavore wrote: What are the limitations which confine creatures to fixed "kinds"?
Not sure what you mean here but one thing is that one kind can't reproduce with another kind.
I'm talking about evolution. What stops a more chimp like ape, over time, becoming more straight, walking more upright, its brain enlarging and intelligence growing until it becomes a more human-like ape? What is the magical barrier?
I don't know but I believe there is barrier to stop kinds becoming other kinds. I'm not sure if there is a physical barrier as in the design of living organisms or whether it's something humans can't perceive.
Let me ask you, if some early primate did over time began walking straight and gradually got a bigger brain what was the population size and time frame.
Not sure why you're trying to change the subject with an irrelevant and confused question at the end there. It's fine. You don't know what this so-called barrier to evolution is. You just believe there is one for no good reason as far as I can tell. So that's it to you. You believe it and that's that. No evidence in the world is going to change that and that's fine by you?
Bribase wrote: If you cannot differentiate between differing "kinds" what hope is there for your assertion that one animal does not change from one "Kind" to another "Kind"?
The assertion is there because it's never been observed that one kind can evolve into another kind. We see examples of species evolution, no can deny that. However to see species evolve and adapt and then make the claim that it can eventually become a totally different over millions of years is merely an assumption with no credible evidence. Your fossil and DNA evidence proves nothing. It's meaningless. Evolutionists use that kind of evidence to dupe the public.
It's dishonest of evolutionists to state that evolution is a fact. They mix in evolution within species, which is a fact, with evolution across kinds of animals, which is an assumption. This isn't science it's propaganda.
Bullshit, you can't even define what "kind" so how the fuck do you know that such has never been observed.
Animavore wrote: What are the limitations which confine creatures to fixed "kinds"?
Not sure what you mean here but one thing is that one kind can't reproduce with another kind.
I'm talking about evolution. What stops a more chimp like ape, over time, becoming more straight, walking more upright, its brain enlarging and intelligence growing until it becomes a more human-like ape? What is the magical barrier?
I don't know but I believe there is barrier to stop kinds becoming other kinds. I'm not sure if there is a physical barrier as in the design of living organisms or whether it's something humans can't perceive.
See my example upthread. The only physical barrier included in my description of my cat's behaviour was the door it was meowing at, I opened the door and it has left to unsucessfully propagate it's species or teach the local rodentia a thing or two about natural selection. If you cannot define what your conception of a "kind" is, your assertions about them become more and more ludicrous. I recommend that you stop using the term.
Bribase wrote: If you cannot differentiate between differing "kinds" what hope is there for your assertion that one animal does not change from one "Kind" to another "Kind"?
The assertion is there because it's never been observed that one kind can evolve into another kind. We see examples of species evolution, no can deny that. However to see species evolve and adapt and then make the claim that it can eventually become a totally different over millions of years is merely an assumption with no credible evidence. Your fossil and DNA evidence proves nothing. It's meaningless. Evolutionists use that kind of evidence to dupe the public.
It's dishonest of evolutionists to state that evolution is a fact. They mix in evolution within species, which is a fact, with evolution across kinds of animals, which is an assumption. This isn't science it's propaganda.
This post saddens me deeply. There's a wealth of knowledge and information on the subject. Mountains upon mountains of evidence discovered and uncovered through investigation and diligent research, but you'd rather sit at the foot of the mountain like a wild hermit warning people not to climb because it's dangerous than climb it yourself and enjoy the view from the summit.
Your post is as ironic as the title of that book series, Left Behind. So it's also kind of funny. I guess it what they call "bitter-sweet".
Bribase wrote: If you cannot differentiate between differing "kinds" what hope is there for your assertion that one animal does not change from one "Kind" to another "Kind"?
The assertion is there because it's never been observed that one kind can evolve into another kind.
There you are using that term again, how tiresome.
We see one "kind" evolving into another "kind" all of the fucking time, depending of course to a lesser or greater degree on what you define as a kind. But until you can actually outline how we come to differentiate one "kind" from another your argument makes no sense at all.
Bribase wrote: If you cannot differentiate between differing "kinds" what hope is there for your assertion that one animal does not change from one "Kind" to another "Kind"?
The assertion is there because it's never been observed that one kind can evolve into another kind. We see examples of species evolution, no can deny that. However to see species evolve and adapt and then make the claim that it can eventually become a totally different over millions of years is merely an assumption with no credible evidence. Your fossil and DNA evidence proves nothing. It's meaningless. Evolutionists use that kind of evidence to dupe the public.
It's dishonest of evolutionists to state that evolution is a fact. They mix in evolution within species, which is a fact, with evolution across kinds of animals, which is an assumption. This isn't science it's propaganda.
It's dishonest of Olympic athletes to state their travelled distance in miles. They mix taking steps, which is a fact, with running mile, wich is an assumption. That isn't sport, it's propaganda.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
questioner121 wrote:If you're referring to them denying evolution then I don't think you understand their position on evolution. Creationists don't deny evolution within species however they do deny evolution across kinds, ie. macroevolution. This is fine according to scripture and doesn't go against it. I can see why the atheists think what they do but I'm afraid it's they who are trusting in huge assumptions. The media is doing a great job deluding people but the truth will come out eventually.
Which means they deny evolution. Evolution theory recognizes there is no such thing as different "kinds" which are ancestrally distinct.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
Calilasseia wrote:So basically, these guys are once again demonstrating that their position consists of "if reality and doctrine differ, reality is wrong and doctrine is right". I'm no longer surprised at this, but I still have trouble understanding this mindset from a viscerally immediate standpoint. I can understand it as an abstract concept, and formulate appropriate hypotheses to address it, but I still wonder how the hell supposedly grown adults can adopt this mindset.
From watching the video, they still manage to avoid directly equating doctrine with unreality. What they do admit doing is that because they accept the bible as an absolute truth they knowingly suspend their critical faculty. One says that he believes first then works on trying to understand, but presumably does not take this very far possibly because. Their arguments for accepting the bible as the truth ironically lead them to highlight the very questions they should be using to validate if the bible is the picture of reality, but once again they manage to detour at the last moment to a headon collision with the flaws.
What is interesting is their obvious struggle to present themselves as rational (as contemporary society now demands), and that they accept evidence and facts as ways to accurately validate reality, all the while denying these very things when they are at odds with biblical teaching. Being forced to rationalise and support their position with the the very same mechanisms they must deny in order to believe the bible, shows the ability of our minds to bend objective reality. Now that multiple religions are well socialised globally, all with various exclusive rights to the truth that negates the rest, means they have to bend their minds even more.
Could it argued that these people have a pathology that can be objectively classified as mental illness? Is it something inherent in all human minds that explains our ability to blend socially as well as we do, and these are extreme examples or extreme situations producing people of this sort? My concern is that there are plenty of examples outside of religion of similar minds and I recall my own behavior as a teenager that was truly mindless. Perhaps my own sense of rational thought is my own delusion, hiding behind itself as it seems to do with the muppets in the video - what a morbid thought.
The video would be funny if it was not so wasteful and potentially dangerous. I tell myself that I should not be drawn to debate with them given the futility of doing it, but I find it hard to resist. If a God did create the minds displayed in the video in his own image, then God help us all.
If you're referring to them denying evolution then I don't think you understand their position on evolution.
Ahem, I've been dealing with these people for six years. I think I've learned what they think in that time.
questioner121 wrote:Creationists don't deny evolution within species
Actually, some do. I dealt with one such individual over at the now-defunct Richard Dawkins Forums, who asserted that species were immutable. I had fun showing him lots of goldfish and Siamese fighting fish that flushed his assertion down the toilet.
questioner121 wrote:however they do deny evolution across kinds, ie. macroevolution.
Ahem, "kinds" has never been given a proper, rigorous definition, and isn't an accepted term in biology. Worse still, creationists can't even agree amongst themselves what constitutes a "kind". Even worse still, the further one moves from mammals taxonomically, the more creationists widen the remit of the term "kind" to encompass Family, Order, Class and even Phylum. On the other hand, biologists have rigorous definitions for the term 'species'. Consequently I shall treat "kinds" as another creationist fiction.
questioner121 wrote:This is fine according to scripture and doesn't go against it.
Oh wait, the actual evidence from observational reality points inexorably to common descent with modification going right back to about 3.5 billion years before present. Which on its own drives a tank battalion through creationist assertions.
questioner121 wrote:I can see why the atheists think what they do
Correction, what you're doing here is presuming to see this, based upon the usual tiresome strawman caricatures.
questioner121 wrote:but I'm afraid it's they who are trusting in huge assumptions.
Bollocks. First of all, the people with the "assumptions" are creationists. They're they ones who assume that pre-scientific mythology is right and science is wrong. All we do is take their assumptions at face value, and demonstrate, courtesy of the vast body of scientific evidence, why their assumptions are wrong. In the process, we demonstrate that creationist assertions are not just wrong, but complete fabrications.
questioner121 wrote:The media is doing a great job deluding people
If you're referring to Fox News and religious TV stations peddling creationist lies, then I'm tempted to agree.
questioner121 wrote:but the truth will come out eventually.
The truth is out now. Namely, creationism is a crock of shit, and evolution is real and observable. Suck on it.
questioner121 wrote:Believers are told to find the truth.
No they're not. They're told to treat mythological assertions as fact, regardless of whether or not reality agrees with this.
questioner121 wrote:They can't just accept anything as the word of God.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Please, there are over forty thousand different denominations calling themselves "Christian" alone, all claiming to have the "right interpretation" of the mythology in question. Hardly surprising, given that the entire business of supernaturalism consists of treating made up mythological assertions as fact.
questioner121 wrote:However some believers just accept whatever is written without trying to check if it's the truth or simply accepting other peoples interpretations.
Well this surprises no one who understands that the whole business of supernaturalism consists of treating made up mythological assertions as fact.
questioner121 wrote: This leads to confusion, especially for the atheists.
HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Read the above and weep. None of the atheists here are "confused" about anything. We're pointing and laughing at supernaturalist incompetence.
Calilasseia wrote:So basically, these guys are once again demonstrating that their position consists of "if reality and doctrine differ, reality is wrong and doctrine is right". I'm no longer surprised at this, but I still have trouble understanding this mindset from a viscerally immediate standpoint. I can understand it as an abstract concept, and formulate appropriate hypotheses to address it, but I still wonder how the hell supposedly grown adults can adopt this mindset.
From an atheist scientific perspective
Corrected it for you.
questioner121 wrote:isn't this just a product of evolution over millions of years?
Not necessarily. Human brains are capable of generating behaviours that run counter to evolutionary imperatives. But since one of the necessary features organisms have to acquire, at least in the case of metazoans, is sufficient situational awareness of the surroundings in order to find food and avoid being eaten, it does make one wonder how members of a species whose ancestors deployed that situational awareness, with sufficient competency to survive and reproduce, gave rise to descendants who fail to deploy the same senses to observe certain basic observable biological facts.
questioner121 wrote: Creationists don't deny evolution within species however they do deny evolution across kinds, ie. macroevolution. .
Long time no see!
Now. Do tell me about these 'kinds'.
Dogs, cats, lizards, fish, birds, etc.
Oh no, it's the three year old's view of taxonomy.
Let's just concentrate on fish for a moment. If you're seriously trying to tell me that this little lot:
are all sufficiently related to each other to have arisen by warp-speed evolution in a small number of generations from some sort of generic "fish kind", then you really need to go away and spend a decade studying comparative anatomy. One of those organisms above doesn't have eyes with lenses or extrinsic musculature (the Hagfish), two of them are jawless (Hagfish and Lamprey), and four of them have cartilaginous, not bony skeletons (Hagfish, Lamprey, Torpedo Ray, Great White). In the case of the bony fishes above, one is a Sarcopterygian (Australian Lungfish), with a completely different fin anatomy to the Actinopterygians, and in the case of the Actinopterygians, two are liverbearers (Anableps anableps and the Surfperch), Betta splendens is capable of breathing atmospheric air, Eigenmannia virescens as well as lacking a dorsal and caudal fin, can generate an electric field (as can Gnathonemus petersii above), and two of them (Gasteropelecus sternicla and Pantodon buchholzi) are capable of flight.
Apart from the fact that a wealth of fossil evidence exists pointing to the actual first emergence of each of the requisite groups (here's a hint, it happened a lot further in the past than 2348 BCE), there's also a wealth of molecular phylogenetic evidence from living members of the requisite groups that, oh wait, dovetails exquisitely with much of the fossil evidence.
Come back when you've learned some comparative anatomy.
Calilasseia wrote:So basically, these guys are once again demonstrating that their position consists of "if reality and doctrine differ, reality is wrong and doctrine is right". I'm no longer surprised at this, but I still have trouble understanding this mindset from a viscerally immediate standpoint. I can understand it as an abstract concept, and formulate appropriate hypotheses to address it, but I still wonder how the hell supposedly grown adults can adopt this mindset.
If you think about it there are two realities:
1. Reality of the physical world. 2. Reality of the subjective world in our minds.
Both have laws, boundaries and concepts.
I'l give you three guesses which of the above takes precedence. Here's a clue for you: you can't just dream up whatever fantasies occur in the television in your head, and have reality rearrange itself to make them real.
questioner121 wrote: In my opinion humans consider the reality of the subjective world a lot more important than that of the physical world.
Oh wait ... that's what supernaturalists do. They think the products of the televisions inside their heads dictate to reality.
questioner121 wrote:I think atheists try to explain/understand their subjective reality based on observations of the physical world.
Once again, the word you're looking for is "scientists", not "atheists".
questioner121 wrote:I don't think it's possible to do that.
The very existence of successful science says you're wrong.
questioner121 wrote:For believers it's easy, God created it and provided us with guidance on how to live in our subjective reality.
In short, treat made up shit as fact. Good luck with that one.
questioner121 wrote:Biologists have a hard time defining species.
No they don't. Here's the biological definition of species.
A species is a population of organisms, all capable of producing viable offspring with other members of the population, but incapable of producing viable offpsring with members of a different interfertile population.
That wasn't hard at all.
As for the taxonomic process, well that involves that business called comparative anatomy again.
questioner121 wrote:In the definition of primate all they've done is list the common traits of monkeys, apes and humans to give the impression that humans evolved.
Bullshit. Oh wait, the first definition of primate was erected by Linnaeus, who did so a century before Darwin mentioned anything about evolution. So please, drop the bullshit you're trying to peddle here, that scientists made up these definitions to push a "doctrine" or an "agenda", because it is bullshit. Indeed, Linnaeus himself wrote a letter to a fellow taxonomist, one Johann Georg Gmelin, in 1747, lamenting the fact that the evidence was pointing to humans and chimpanzees being sufficiently closely related to warrant being placed in the same taxonomic Genus, but his efforts to do this were being subject to religious interference.
Oh, wait for it, I presented that letter to you way back on 28/01/2013, in answer to this turgid post of yours in n earlier trainwreck thread of yours. My reply was posted here. Allow me to repeat what I said about that letter, in that earlier post:
Linnaeus, way back in 1747, thought humans and chimpanzees were suffficiently closely related, on the basis of comparative anatomy alone, for the two species to belong to the same taxonomic Genus. The reason he didn't do this was interference from religion, in an era when enforcers of conformtiy to doctrine had the power to destroy your life. Indeed, I've covered this in the past here on numerous occasions: Linnaeus wrote a letter to his fellow taxonomist, Johann Georg Gmelin, in 1747, lamenting this interference. The letter can be read in full online, courtesy of the University of Uppsala's publicly available version of the database containing the letters of Linnaeus here. The letter in question is this one, dated 25th February, 1747. I'll provide both the original Latin text of the relevant paragraph, and the English translation:
Linnaeus, 1747 wrote:Non placet, quod Hominem inter ant[h]ropomorpha collocaverim, sed homo noscit se ipsum. Removeamus vocabula. Mihi perinde erit, quo nomine utamur. Sed quaero a Te et Toto orbe differentiam genericam inter hominem et Simiam, quae ex principiis Historiae naturalis. Ego certissime nullam novi. Utinam aliquis mihi unicam diceret! Si vocassem hominem simiam vel vice versa omnes in me conjecissem theologos. Debuissem forte ex lege artis.
The translation reads as follows:
Calilasseia wrote:It does not please (you) that I've placed Man among the Anthropomorpha,[22] but man learns to know himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name we apply. But I seek from you and from the whole world a generic difference between man and simian that [follows] from the principles of Natural History. I absolutely know of none. If only someone might tell me a single one! If I would have called man a simian or vice versa, I would have brought together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to have by virtue of the law of the discipline.
So Linnaeus, who was a de facto creationist (purely because there existed no other paradigm in his day), agreed that humans and chimpanzees were sufficiently closely related, to warrant their placement in the same taoxnomic Genus, yet was inhibited from doing so by religious interference in science. Of course this is not the only instance where the attitude of the religious has consisted of "conform or else", not is it the only instance of the religious insisting that doctrine is automatically right, regardless of whether or not reality agrees with this. But I digress. The simple fact is, comparative anatomists, creationists included, throughout the 18th and early 19th centuries, posited that relationships existed between different organismal taxa, on the basis of shared anatomical characteristics.
So in other words, I educated you over a year ago, as to why your above assertion was bullshit, by reference to relevant historical material, yet here you arem peddling the same "scientists are making shit up to push the evolution doctrine" bullshit I destroyed over a year ago. Now as far as I can see, there are two choices available here, namely incompetence or dishonesty. Which is it, "questioner"?
questioner121 wrote:There's no denying that humans do have physical traits which are similar to primates
Lots of them. As Linnaeus found out back in 1747, fully one hundred and twelve years before Darwin wrote anything on evolution. So your attempts to peddle the bullshit assertion that those shared anatomical features were erected to "push a doctrine" is bullshit, because Linnaeus was performing comparative anatomical analyses one hundred and twelve years before evolutionary theory existed. Going to learn some of these elementary facts, are you?
questioner121 wrote:however when you consider human intelligence, consciousness and our subjective reality we are very different from primates.
No we're not. Oh wait , other primates exhibit many of the same behaviours as humans. Here's a classic example, courtesy of primate scientist Frans de Waal:
Indeed, as Frans de Waal explained, the same experiment has been performed with dogs and birds, and yielded the same results.
questioner121 wrote:Dog, bird, lizard, etc. are useful in identifying a groups of living organisms from a high level.
Only in the world of everyday conversation and activities. For scientific work, lay categories are frequently next to useless.
questioner121 wrote:No one will get mixed up between a dog and bird
Oh, you mean the way no one would get mixed up between a bird and a bat? Oh wait, that's exactly what happens in the Bible. Specifically, in Leviticus. Here's Leviticus 11:13-19, where the author apparently forgot that bats were mammals, not birds:
11:12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you. 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls ; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; 11:15 Every raven after his kind; 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, 11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
Oh, the same passage erects other nonsense, such as "four legged fowls" and four legged insects. A reasonably astute five year old would point and laugh at this rubbish.
questioner121 wrote:it's simple, easy to understand.
Oh look, we're back to the three year old's view of taxonomy again.
questioner121 wrote:Who wants a 10 page definition of a living organism unless you're doing research work.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! What a truly farcical and lame display of wilful ignorance!
To illustrate this, here's two photos:
[1] Bat number 1:
[2] Bat number 2:
Care to tell us what the above are, with your "simple, easy to understand" and laughably naive view of the biosphere?
questioner121 wrote:The important thing is evolution makes the assumption
Bullshit. Evolutionary theory does NOT make "assumptions", it erects postulates and then tests them to see if reality agrees How many of the 3,008 scientific papers performing this task in my current collection do you want me to hit you with, in order to establish this?
questioner121 wrote:that all living organisms are related
For which we have vast amounts of evidence. Some of which I presented to you in that earlier post of mine linked to above, from January 28th, 2013.
questioner121 wrote:and have evolved from a base living organism
For which we have vast amounts of evidence.
questioner121 wrote:this is not fact this is assumption
Bullshit. Do I have to hit you with those papers again?
questioner121 wrote:based on so called fossil evidence
"So called" my arse. Scientists were digging up fossils and trying to learn about them as far back as the days of the Ancient Greeks. Xenophanes wrote about fossil shells as far back as 500 BCE. In more recent times, Cuvier was applying comparative anatomy to fossils as far back as the 1790s.
Oh, you mean that paper I schooled you onback in January 2013 on the chimpanzee genome? Read that paper, have you? Or did you just ignore its contents, because those contents drove a tank battalion through mythological assertions?
questioner121 wrote:Creationists are saying God created kinds and lets them intermingle within their kind within certain limits.
Except that no creationist has, when challenged, ever been able to present those merely asserted "limits".
questioner121 wrote:This is what we see when we observe the world.
Wrong. How many papers on speciation do I have to bring here to flush your assertion down the toilet?
questioner121 wrote:I never said all dogs share a common ancestor which was the first dog. I just believe God created different kinds.
In other words, you think made up mythological assertions dictate to reality. Pathetic.
questioner121 wrote:He could have created hundreds of different types of dogs in the beginning but it would still be classed as one kind.
Why? Why should unrelated entities poofed into existence as a result of a magic conjuring trick, be considered the same?
As opposed for entities for which evidence of shared ancestry exists?
questioner121 wrote: God created it and provided us with guidance on how to live in our subjective reality.
Really? So which godly inspired book do we follow? The bible? The koran? The vedas? The book of Mormon? The Upanishads? Saying "God created it" isn't helpful and it's not even half the story. You might as well say, "Fred created it." How did he create it? What was the process? Where did the matter come from which he used to fashion it? How does He interact with it? Don't think you can just get away with making such an assertion. I want to see your homework. Your theories. Your train of observation and logic leading you to conclude that "God created it" or your assertions are worthless.
According to my understanding of the Bible and Koran
There's nothing to "understand" here, except that both books are nothing but mythology, made up by ignorant, superstitious, pre-scientific nomads who couldn't tell a bat from a bird.
questioner121 wrote:God can just will things into being, he can create things out of nothing or shape matter in whatever way he pleases.
Even if we assume by hypothesis that [1] this merely asserted magic man of your actually exists, and [2] your above assertion about this magic man is true, why should things poofed into existence, connected by nothing more than being the product of a magic conjuring trick, be regarded as belonging to the same class? If your magic man waves his magic todger about, and conjures up in succession, a banana, a log, and a Stegosaurus, are these all the "same kind"?
questioner121 wrote:We don't scientifically know how. It's a belief.
That's why scientists don't bother with belief. It's fucking useless.
questioner121 wrote:God has given us the faculties to observe and understand up to a certain point, beyond that it's always going to be a matter of belief since we can't observe the creation of the universe with our limited senses/abilities or witness or own creation.
Three words. Persistent physical evidence. Learn what they mean.
questioner121 wrote:My assertions may be worthless to you but they mean a great deal to me, they are the foundations of my existence now.
How sad.
questioner121 wrote:Now according to science you tell me where matter came from here light came from, what was there before the big bang and how space is expanding. I'd like it all to be reproducible and falsifiable otherwise I'll just accept it as a meaningless assumption.
Whilst peddling blind assertions from your favourite mythology as if they constituted established fact. Nice double standard you have there.
questioner121 wrote:Does the big bang and science answer fulfil your life? If so then I guess you're done.
I don't give a shit whether or not it tickles my erogneous zones, what I care about is whether it works. And science does fucking work. Unlike made up shit mythology.
questioner121 wrote:Believers are waiting for the true life and answers to all their questions and hopes and desires.
Animavore wrote: What are the limitations which confine creatures to fixed "kinds"?
Not sure what you mean here but one thing is that one kind can't reproduce with another kind.
Oh wait, what was that I posted above, with respect to the biological species concept? Reproductive compatibility. Which means that according to your assertion above, "kinds" equals "species". Except that, oh wait, we have evidence for new species arising. Which drives a tank battalion through some of the other assertions you cherish.
No, really, you are not waiting for answers. You are building as many barriers as you can to actual answers to actual questions.
Faith-"I don't know and I don't want to know"
You don't understand faith or maybe you have a different definition to the one I use. Faith is trust in God.
Until you can provide real evidence that this entity exists, your above definition is worthless.
On the other hand, the evidence supernaturalists keep providing us with, is that faith is synonymous with belief, and consists of treating unsupported mythological assertions as fact.
questioner121 wrote:In order to have trust in God you first need to have belief in God.
In other words, accept uncritically the unsupported assertion that your magic man actually exists.
questioner121 wrote:For me it's hard having faith in something which may or may not exist.
Our answer is simply, "why bother?"
questioner121 wrote:This is why I think a number of believers lose faith. They may see some priest do something bad or see other believers acting wrongly and their faith is shattered, or maybe they read about evolution and it makes sense to them and they see no point in having faith. But if you truly believe in God then no matter what happens you will always believe in God, even if that means the Bible or Koran or whatever scripture is proven to be wrong. However you may still lose your faith (trust in God) and keep your belief in God. This may happen if something really really bad happens in your life.
What a waste of brain cells. Seriously, there are far more productive things you could be doing with them.
questioner121 wrote:I am all for science, I love it.
Except when it fails to conform to mythological assertions.
questioner121 wrote:It's what I base my belief in God on.
Are you serious?
questioner121 wrote:However I'm pretty weak in the faith department. The more science we do the more it will prove that there really is God.
I have news for you. No it won't.
questioner121 wrote: So I'm happy for science to get more funding so we can examine and discover more mysteries and determine the truth.
Except when the truth says "your mythology is horseshit".
Bribase wrote:If you cannot differentiate between differing "kinds" what hope is there for your assertion that one animal does not change from one "Kind" to another "Kind"?
The assertion is there because it's never been observed that one kind can evolve into another kind.
If you don't know what a "kind" is, and how to differentiate them in a rigorous manner, how can you possibly fucking know?
questioner121 wrote:We see examples of species evolution, no can deny that. However to see species evolve and adapt and then make the claim that it can eventually become a totally different over millions of years is merely an assumption with no credible evidence.
Actually, it's been observed in the laboratory. On several occasions.
questioner121 wrote:Your fossil and DNA evidence proves nothing. It's meaningless.
Oh, and made up shit from mythology is meaningful? That sound you hear is everyone pointing and laughing at your worthless assertion above.
Ahem, I schooled you on this piece of dishonesty a year ago, DROP IT.
questioner121 wrote:use that kind of evidence to dupe the public.
Bare faced lie. Drop it.
questioner121 wrote:It's dishonest of evolutionists
Drop the "evolutionist" bullshit NOW. I schooled you on this bullshit over a year ago.
questioner121 wrote:They mix in evolution within species, which is a fact, with evolution across kinds of animals, which is an assumption.
What is a "kind" again? Until you have a proper, rigorous, testable definition for this, I and everyone else who paid attention in science class will treat it as a fiction.
Bullshit. Here's an illustration of why it's bullshit.
Creationist Hominid Skull Fail.jpg (271.84 KiB) Viewed 1552 times
That chart illustrates how creationists can't make up their minds amongst themselves even with respect to human ancestry. Which goes to show that creationism is horseshit, all of it.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
questioner121: I get the impression that your posts contain a version of something you have read or something you have been told or heard recently rather than your own ideas and observations. Of course, I could be reading it completely wrong.
questioner121 wrote: I am all for science, I love it. It's what I base my belief in God on.
I'd be really careful if you base your belief in god on science. As has been seen many times before here on the forum, your knowledge and understanding of science are weak.
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
questioner121 wrote: I don't have a definition of kind. I would go by classification.
Therefore you have to ditch your 'micro/macro' nonsense.
It's not nonsense it's fact. Unless you can show me one kind evolving into another kind without resort to the tired argument of "it takes millions of years".
questioner121 wrote: I don't have a definition of kind. I would go by classification.
Therefore you have to ditch your 'micro/macro' nonsense.
It's not nonsense it's fact.
No more than the earth being flat.
questioner121 wrote:Unless you can show me one kind evolving into another kind without resort to the tired argument of "it takes millions of years".
Unless you can show me one step leading to walking a mile without resorting to the tired argument of 'it takes an hour'.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
questioner121 wrote: I don't have a definition of kind. I would go by classification.
Therefore you have to ditch your 'micro/macro' nonsense.
It's not nonsense it's fact. Unless you can show me one kind evolving into another kind without resort to the tired argument of "it takes millions of years".
I can't answer this question because you haven't defined 'kind' to a sufficient extent that it is a useful concept.
As for showing you; look at the fossil and phylogenetic record. It's unfortunate that you won't accept the physical evidence that these records present.
As an analogy; are you similarly against stellar evolution? There are many 'kinds' of objects that we can observe in the historical record contained in our observations of the cosmos. I could say that some of these 'kinds' are things like nebulae, stars, supernova, blackholes etc.. This historical record shows us that nebula evolve into stars by natural processes taking place over millions of years.
I can't show you an individual nebula changing its 'kind' into a star, but I can show you many examples of nebulae at various transisitional points i.e. collapse and protostar formation etc..
Your question seems to hint at the expectation that, for example, four legged furry mammals somehow changed into whales one day.
That's not the way it works Q.
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
questioner121 wrote: I don't have a definition of kind. I would go by classification.
Therefore you have to ditch your 'micro/macro' nonsense.
It's not nonsense it's fact. Unless you can show me one kind evolving into another kind without resort to the tired argument of "it takes millions of years".
Show me how yo add 1 and 2 without resorting to 3 first!
questioner121 wrote: I don't have a definition of kind. I would go by classification.
Therefore you have to ditch your 'micro/macro' nonsense.
It's not nonsense it's fact. Unless you can show me one kind evolving into another kind without resort to the tired argument of "it takes millions of years".
I can't answer this question because you haven't defined 'kind' to a sufficient extent that it is a useful concept.
As for showing you; look at the fossil and phylogenetic record. It's unfortunate that you won't accept the physical evidence that these records present.
As an analogy; are you similarly against stellar evolution? There are many 'kinds' of objects that we can observe in the historical record contained in our observations of the cosmos. I could say that some of these 'kinds' are things like nebulae, stars, supernova, blackholes etc.. This historical record shows us that nebula evolve into stars by natural processes taking place over millions of years.
I can't show you an individual nebula changing its 'kind' into a star, but I can show you many examples of nebulae at various transisitional points i.e. collapse and protostar formation etc..
Your question seems to hint at the expectation that, for example, four legged furry mammals somehow changed into whales one day.
That's not the way it works Q.
Until you can reproduce evolution at the macro level and observe it for real it's always going to be an assumption that the kind of organism evolved into another kind gradually. You can have tons of so called evidence but the interpretation of that evidence could always be proven wrong. I'm not saying the fossils are fake or that DNA doesn't exist. I'm saying that the interpretation of the evidence made by scientists is wrong in the case of macro-evolution.
So, do you have examples of macro-evolution which can be observed in real life? If not then it's an assumption based on whatever evidence you choose.
by 
.jpg)
