tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Though that may be uncomfortable with all that atheism inside their butts.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creationists, please provide evidence
- Thread starter evolved yet?
- Start date
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Good greif
Where did you get the idea that living in different areas constitutes a classification for genus?
The Elephas and the Loxodonta are in different genera due to genetic and physiology differences.
They are also so genetically different that they are unable to interbreed and produce viable offspring.
The rest of your rant on homo sapiens living in differing areas and having diffing skin tones makes absolutely no sense at all.
Really, you are just embarrassing yourself.
The Wizard
Active Member
I won't even pretend to have evidence. In fact, I won't even pretend to understand how science would get satisfactory evidence in the first place if it wanted. Anything that it observes and measures will become "a part of the creation," not any evidence to them of a creating hand working outside of it. It's like a "scientific computer program" looking for evidence of an outside creator, inside the computer, when it can never leave the computer in the first place. Makes no sense...
Everything coming from absolutely nothing also makes no sense...
McBell
Admiral Obvious
I agree.
But then we run into the problem of where god came from...
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Of course, there is nothing in the Theory of Evolution, or in Evolution itself, to suggest that.
The Wizard
Active Member
You would be right. I see that you are quite on top of the subject at that. Much more than I could ever be because I dont study it much. I wasn't even thinking about evolution. Such does not bother me in any way... it would only impress me more about the creation for which I am breathing in.
Venatoris
Active Member
So I am a supporter of supernatural origin of life. I see complex biological systems that constitute life and determine eventually something had to create/design life to be governed this way by natural processes. Being a creationist I make the conclusion based on an ID inference totally based within natural observations of daily life. The opposite view is that strict naturalistic processes spontaneously generated life from non-life, i.e. abiogenesis. No where in nature is abiogenesis happening? Nowhere. Yet we see ID all around us.
Both, Darwinian evolution and creationism, rely on observational science, namely biological evolution. But both also rely on philosophy underpinning their interpretation of those observations. Creationists fully support, speciation, natural selection, mutations, environmental pressures, etc as mechanisms of biological diversity from the origin of life that was designed.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
Again it comes back to what they define as a 'species'
some species of dog are unable to breed with anther species of dog for anatomical reasons... but they are still dogs
there may be genetic reasons which prevent fertilization in some but not others. I think there is much more research needed to be done before any conclusions are drawn.
Venatoris
Active Member
Hey Pegg,
Do you know of any ID scientists who have/are currently/planning to form a comprehensive taxonomy system based on Intelligent design theories? What I mean is a full map of the changes which have occurred starting with the "Genesis kinds"(named and numbered) all the way up to the current diversity of life we see today? I understand that creation/ID proponents are having trouble explaining themselves whilst working within the current classifications of modern biology and I'm wondering if someone is going to put forth a new system for public/scientific review that will help clarify their position so this debate can take a legitimate step forward.
ID has nothing to do with Genesis kinds, that is philosophy or theology... What ID is, is an inference based in nature.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
No. What im saying is that biologists have blurred the lines by classifying organisms into increasingly inclusive groups. By the way they have defined animals, they've made it impossible for a 'genesis kind' to fit in anywhere without it appearing incorrect.
If it appears incorrect its because in biologic terminology, a species applies to any group of interfertile animals (or plants) but at the same time, many of these species are put into a genus on their own rather then grouped together as a Genesis kind would do. This is why its confusing because in a genesis Kind there could be many such species or varieties within a single genre.
Perhaps its not, maybe i've got the wrong idea completely.
Here is what I understand a genesis Kind to be.
each of these belong to a genesis kind:
each of these belong to one genesis kind:
each of these belong to one genesis kind:
All of these belong to one genesis kind:
these pictures are not exhaustive of all the different varieties that could make up just one genesis kind...they are to give you an idea of exactly what can be included as one genesis kind and the reason why they can be included is because they can interbreed.
So at what level on the biological classification system would you put a genesis kind?
Species ?
Genus ?
Family ?
Order ?
Class ?
Phylum
Kingdom
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
Good greif
Where did you get the idea that living in different areas constitutes a classification for genus?
The Elephas and the Loxodonta are in different genera due to genetic and physiology differences.
They are also so genetically different that they are unable to interbreed and produce viable offspring.
The rest of your rant on homo sapiens living in differing areas and having diffing skin tones makes absolutely no sense at all.
Really, you are just embarrassing yourself.
Im not embarrassing myself at all. Where did you get the information from that the Elephas and Loxodonta cannot interbreed?
In fact they have produced hybrid offspring. There is one preserved in the London Natural History Museum...it was bred at the Chester Zoo in 1978 and they named it 'Motty'
Venatoris
Active Member
If this was true I would already have the comprehensive information I'm asking about.
The computer you use is ID.
Now what is readily seen in nature that is that comprehensive regarding abiogenesis?
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
I have no idea but i think it would be great if someone did .
Venatoris
Active Member
This thread isn't about abiogenesis or evolution. It is about evidence for creationism. I'm not debating anything here, I'm looking for information supporting your position that doesn't rely on attacking the position of others.
Actually, I'm using an eight year old toshiba laptop that was very poorly designed. Kinda like you, It's only useful until you need something from it.
Biological evolution is fully supported under creationism.
You have clearly just admitted to using ID. Therefore, as a creationist, the evidence is within nature all around you. This ID inference is used within nature to conclude that the origin of life was also intelligently designed. Just like evolution concludes that somehow spontaneous generation happened.
Do you see the relation here? Both creationism and Darwinian evolution rely upon science and philosophy.
Venatoris
Active Member
Well, keep me posted. It would be nice to have a solid foundation to work with. These unending discussions about definitions and terminology never get anywhere.
I'd like to personally thank you for being honest and direct when answering my questions, RF could use a few more like you. Even if we disagree, we can still have a civil discussion.