Creationists, please provide evidence

[Autodidact]

Your underlined quote is your reply to the evidence presented for an intelligent designer, the incredible engineering skill and remarkable design evident in all living things. (Hebrews 13:4)
Your reply reminds me of a policeman who watches a criminal shoot unarmed people walking on the street, one after another. Bystanders urge the policeman to stop the criminal. "But there's no evidence here of a crime" opines the cop.
Many learned scientists disagree with you, accepting the scientific evidence of which they are eyewitnesses, that such complexity and design arising from chance or mutation is impossible.
Also, your dismissal of HOW God created living things according to their kinds does not change the fact that God's directly creating each animal and plant kind excludes any possibility of life evolving.

rusra: You seem to be hard of understanding. Yes, GOD CREATED AND DESIGNED EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE. We're all starting from that assumption. Can you please try really hard to hold on to that and remember it? We're not disputing that, O.K.? Let it go; you win.

Now, on to the thread. HOW did He do so? What is your hypothesis as to HOW God created the various species of organisms on earth? Mine is evolution. What's yours?

Jesus this is hard work.

 

[Autodidact]

Many learned scientists disagree with you, accepting the scientific evidence of which they are eyewitnesses, that such complexity and design arising from chance or mutation is impossible.

YOu still haven't learned what the Theory of Evolution is, have you? Let me know if you ever want to learn. Until you do, you really cannot argue against it. Sorry, it's impossible.
[qutoe]Also, your dismissal of HOW God created living things according to their kinds does not change the fact that God's directly creating each animal and plant kind excludes any possibility of life evolving.[/quote]

What do you mean by "directly?" Is that the Magic Poofing Hypothesis?

 

[evolved yet?]

Over nine-hundred posts!

 

[Pegg]

On what basis do you say that? How do you know?

the different elephants have been crossbred and therefore they are of the same genesis 'kind' ... Motty being one example.

And im pretty sure that if mammoths were around today, we'd be able to hybridize them with another elephant too. (theory yes, but if its happened among other different species of elephants then it can happen with them)

 

[Pegg]

So kind just means "species" then?

Also, stop blaming science for your inability to accurately define "kind" in a scientific sense. We already have working definitions on virtually all levels of taxonomic rank.

it would be nice if it were that simple, but no - it cant be a species. The reason being that, as i have already said, what biologists choose to call a 'new species' is simply a matter of variation within an existing 'kind'

I will stick to genus because in biology, each species is linked with one genus and therefore there can be many species within one genus. This is the closest definition to a 'genesis kind' because each 'kind' produces many varieties (or species in today's terms)

 

[Pegg]

Now that's a species. Are you sticking with species? Can we work with that? Or are you going to switch back to genus or family?

Moses 'kind' is not a 'species' for the reason that, as I have already stated, some different species can hybridize. Modern biology categorize a panther and a tiger as two different species...yet they can be crossbred.

Do you understand that the ability to breed means the animal is of the same 'kind'? How many times must I repeat this???

There are many different 'species' which can produce hybrids as i've already shown...if they can reproduce it means that they are biologically the same animal and therefore they are a 'genesis kind'

 

[Autodidact]

it would be nice if it were that simple, but no - it cant be a species. The reason being that, as i have already said, what biologists choose to call a 'new species' is simply a matter of variation within an existing 'kind'

I will stick to genus because in biology, each species is linked with one genus and therefore there can be many species within one genus. This is the closest definition to a 'genesis kind' because each 'kind' produces many varieties (or species in today's terms)

Because you know so little about Biology, you keep contradicting yourself. Or you're just confused, or possibly dishonest. I think we've shown you about 5 different ways that YOU do not define "kind" to mean genus. Except when you do. I really don't care how you define this key term in your hypothesis, but would you please pick one and stick to it? If scientific nomenclature doesn't work for you, then don't use it.

As I say, most creationists prevaricate on this point out of dishonesty. They need the word to mean one thing at one point in their story, and the shift the definition at another point to make the whole thing work.

No matter how you define it, it doesn't work. The only way to make it work is to shift the definition midstream. We have a word for this. We all it "dishonesty."

And you're doing it, until you clearly state a single definition and accept the consequences for your hypothesis.

Which is that it is false.

 

[Autodidact]

Moses 'kind' is not a 'species' for the reason that, as I have already stated, some different species can hybridize. Modern biology categorize a panther and a tiger as two different species...yet they can be crossbred.

Do you understand that the ability to breed means the animal is of the same 'kind'? How many times must I repeat this???

There are many different 'species' which can produce hybrids as i've already shown...if they can reproduce it means that they are biologically the same animal and therefore they are a 'genesis kind'

There are many genera that cannot cross-breed, so it cannot be a genus either. Why not just say it's a group of animals that can be cross-bred, even if the offspring are infertile or die, and be done?

 

[Pegg]

No matter how you define it, it doesn't work. The only way to make it work is to shift the definition midstream. We have a word for this. We all it "dishonesty."

And you're doing it, until you clearly state a single definition and accept the consequences for your hypothesis.

Which is that it is false.

I have stated a clear definition over and over in this thread...you just dont seem to accept it.

interbreeding animals are a kind.

animals with the ability to hybridize are a kind

animals who can be bred are a kind

any animals who are able to produce offspring are a kind

a kind is a group of animals who can interbreed


how many more times do I need to say it??? Im sorry if you do not understand that, but its that simple...if they can interbreed or produce hybrids they are a kind.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I have stated a clear definition over and over in this thread...you just dont seem to accept it.

interbreeding animals are a kind.

animals with the ability to hybridize are a kind

animals who can be bred are a kind

any animals who are able to produce offspring are a kind

a kind is a group of animals who can interbreed


how many more times do I need to say it??? Im sorry if you do not understand that, but its that simple...if they can interbreed or produce hybrids they are a kind.

A clarification please: Does the offspring have to be viable, that is able to survive and be fertile itself?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

it would be nice if it were that simple, but no - it cant be a species. The reason being that, as i have already said, what biologists choose to call a 'new species' is simply a matter of variation within an existing 'kind'

Except you defined "kind" in the exact same way that scientists define "species". Are you now changing "kind" to mean "genus" or something between species and genus?

I will stick to genus because in biology, each species is linked with one genus and therefore there can be many species within one genus. This is the closest definition to a 'genesis kind' because each 'kind' produces many varieties (or species in today's terms)

Then how do you account for the existence of family as a taxonomic rank?

 

[tumbleweed41]

the different elephants have been crossbred and therefore they are of the same genesis 'kind' ... Motty being one example.

And im pretty sure that if mammoths were around today, we'd be able to hybridize them with another elephant too. (theory yes, but if its happened among other different species of elephants then it can happen with them)

Now Pegg, we have already been over this.
Motty lived ten days and is the ONLY known crossbreed. Their are no viable offspring ever recorded.

By your own logic, Sheep and Goats are the same kind, as their have been short lived crossbreed offspring.

Care to address this problem with your logic, or will you continue to ignore it?

 

[Autodidact]

I have stated a clear definition over and over in this thread...you just dont seem to accept it.

interbreeding animals are a kind.

animals with the ability to hybridize are a kind

animals who can be bred are a kind

any animals who are able to produce offspring are a kind

a kind is a group of animals who can interbreed


how many more times do I need to say it??? Im sorry if you do not understand that, but its that simple...if they can interbreed or produce hybrids they are a kind.

The problem is not that you haven't said it, but that you have said other things that directly contradict it. And that is my point about YECs and "kind." They define it alright. Then they define it again in a way that contradicts that definition. Then they prevaricate between them.

You have said that several times. You have also said it's a genus. These don't match. They are different. In many cases, species within a genus cannot interbreed.

So please pick one. Thank you.

 

[newhope101]

The problem is not that you haven't said it, but that you have said other things that directly contradict it. And that is my point about YECs and "kind." They define it alright. Then they define it again in a way that contradicts that definition. Then they prevaricate between them.

You have said that several times. You have also said it's a genus. These don't match. They are different. In many cases, species within a genus cannot interbreed.

So please pick one. Thank you.

Peg, I really think the first kind should sit where 'family' is. For example the goat...It is possible that a kind was created that resembles the taxonomic rank above that and had the genetic variety to adapt into sheep and goats. I don't forget that creationists must work around a faulty concept, so this, needless to say, will continue to cause confusion. The people that write this stuff get confused and vague so it's OK for creationists too also. If researchers were trying to find Gods intial kinds and asking the right questions, I'd say it would be alot more sorted out for us.

The ancestors of the modern sheep and goats (both rather vague and ill-defined terms) are thought to have moved into mountainous regions – sheep becoming specialised occupants of the foothills and nearby plains, and relying on flight and flocking for defence against predators, and goats adapting to very steep terrain where predators are at a disadvantage. (Wikipedia)

Even though researchers use vague and ill-defined terms you are being made to be specific. I don't know why..perhaps because creationists are seen as being smarter than your average researcher.

 

[painted wolf]

Even though researchers use vague and ill-defined terms you are being made to be specific. I don't know why..perhaps because creationists are seen as being smarter than your average researcher.

LOL! :biglaugh:
Your ill defined research is Wiki!

Sheep and Goats are members of the Caprinae a subfamily of the Bovidae... Both terms are very well defined... but "Sheep" and "Goat" are easier for some people to understand.

wa:do

 

[Subby]

Your question makes no sense. As someone said, it's like asking how a doberman is different than a dog. Humans are a species of ape, therefore the human genome is an ape genome.

But why do you say they are the same genotypes? Where is your evidence for this? Is it similar pseudogenes, or what?

 

[RedOne77]

But why do you say they are the same genotypes? Where is your evidence for this? Is it similar DNA sequences, or what?

I honestly don't know what you mean by "genotype". Genotypes very among organisms of the same species, yet a human genome is also an ape genome as humans are apes.

 

[Subby]

I honestly don't know what you mean by "genotype". Genotypes very among organisms of the same species, yet a human genome is also an ape genome as humans are apes.

Sorry I meant genome in post 916. but why do you say that? how do you know apes and humans are the same?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Sorry I meant genome in post 916. but why do you say that? how do you know apes and humans are the same?

The human genome has been sequenced, as has the genome of many other species. The genomes of human and chimps differ by less than 2%.

Humans are closer to chimps genetically than they are to any other species. Plus, chimps and bonobos are closer to humans genetically than they are to any other ape.

Genetically speaking, there is no doubt about it. Humans are apes.

 

[Subby]

The human genome has been sequenced, as has the genome of many other species. The genomes of human and chimps differ by less than 2%.

In fact, chimps and bonobos are closer to humans genetically than they are to any other ape.

Genetically speaking, there is no doubt about it. Humans are apes.

You see common ancestor I see convergent or parallel biological evolution.