Creationists, please provide evidence

[ImmortalFlame]

Morality is not found in other kinds. There are no manners at the table of animals.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html

 

[McBell]

Morality is not found in other kinds. There are no manners at the table of animals.

Perhaps it would be much better if you were to stop spreading these lies in favour of your ego masturbation?

 

[McBell]

I have a German Shepherd that had to be bribed with treats to obey. She doesn't stay away from the supper table because of conscience, but because she was bribed to do it with treats, until the habit was formed. If you are right, why don't they teach dogs right from wrong, rather than using bribery to get them to do what you want them to do?

That merely shows that you taught her to be immoral.
Interesting that you would teach a dog to be immoral then use said animal as a source to support the lies you spread.

 

[Danmac]

That merely shows that you taught her to be immoral.
Interesting that you would teach a dog to be immoral then use said animal as a source to support the lies you spread.

I did what the trainer told me to do. Maybe you should learn to allow thinking into your reasoning process. It would keep you from saying silly things.

 

[Danmac]

Perhaps it would be much better if you were to stop spreading these lies in favour of your ego masturbation?

My self worth is not determined by such things. That could be where you have went wrong in life. You know, worrying about what others think. You are a crowd pleaser because it gets you a little applause. You are like a doggy that jumps thru hoops for a treat. Your ego depends on it. Now is this where you want to take this conversation to go, or would you rather stay with the topic?

 

[McBell]

I did what the trainer told me to do.

Pass the buck much?

Maybe you should learn to allow thinking into your reasoning process.

Unlike you, I do not blindly do as I am told then blame the one who told me to do it for what I have done.

It would keep you from saying silly things.

Ah, so based upon the amount of bull **** you have posted, one can only conclude that you are much worse at taking your own advice than almost every one else on this forum, right?

 

[Danmac]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html

Actions that are prompted by affection have nothing to do with morality. Is it moral, because a man will not let anyone near his 65 mustang in the name of protection. Protecting ones own interests is never done for the sake of the treasure, but for the sake of the treasurer. Whether animal or human.

 

[McBell]

My self worth is not determined by such things. That could be where you have went wrong in life. You know, worrying about what others think. You are a crowd pleaser because it gets you a little applause. You are like a doggy that jumps thru hoops for a treat. Your ego depends on it. Now is this where you want to take this conversation to go, or would you rather stay with the topic?

Feel better now that you got all those personal attacks out?

You know, for one who whines about personal attacks as much as you do, one would think that you would not resort to them yourself.

Perhaps your hypocrisy is just more powerful than your ability to stop yourself...

 

[Wotan]

Perhaps it would be much better if you were to stop spreading these lies in favour of your ego masturbation?

I think it is less ego and more just good old fashioned IGNORANCE. This poster in particular seems to have an abundance of it AND a desire to demonstrate same - publicly.

 

[Danmac]

Pass the buck much?

I find no fault with the trainer, you do. Probably because you know more than the trainer.

Unlike you, I do not blindly do as I am told then blame the one who told me to do it for what I have done.

You see, that is your problem. You need to learn to listen to the professionals instead of knowing more than they do. Know it alls eventually run into trouble. Of course I'm sure you already know that.

Ah, so based upon the amount of bull **** you have posted, one can only conclude that you are much worse at taking your own advice than almost every one else on this forum, right?

As much as you like to date yourself, I'm not sure that you find it hard to listen to anyone other than you. I'll bet you get a warm fuzzy feeling up your leg every time you hear you talk.

 

[Danmac]

I think it is less ego and more just good old fashioned IGNORANCE. This poster in particular seems to have an abundance of it AND a desire to demonstrate same - publicly.

It would appear to be ignorance to you since you have been trained to believe things that aren't true. That is tragic.

 

[Danmac]

Feel better now that you got all those personal attacks out?

You know, for one who whines about personal attacks as much as you do, one would think that you would not resort to them yourself.

Perhaps your hypocrisy is just more powerful than your ability to stop yourself...

I figured I would take time out and give you a little of your own medicine. Sometimes we have to stoop to foolishness to get our point across. I can give as good as I get.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

You see, that is your problem. You need to learn to listen to the professionals instead of knowing more than they do. Know it alls eventually run into trouble. Of course I'm sure you already know that.

You ask Mestemia to listen to the professionals and yet you yourself reject the professionals when it comes to things like evolutionary biology.

"Do as I say and not as I do"

 

[Autodidact]

Lets assume that God used evolution as the vehicle to bring about all species. The Bible clearly states,

Genesis 1:24 ¶ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

That would be consistent with the evolutionary process. After all, I don't believe God uses anything other than natural means. No magic poofing here. To some extent that doesn't contradict scripture, or my beliefs. The only problem is, humankind is distinct from all other kinds. We cannot be lumped together with all other animal kinds. Somewhere along the line we received an ingredient that is not in all other animal kinds. Somewhere in the process there was a fork in the road where humankind went to the right, and all other kinds went to the left. Would you consider that?

I'll consider anything and accept whatever the evidence seems to support.

So basically, you accept the Theory of Evolution in its entirety, you're just holding out for something special or different for homo sapiens? Is that your position?

 

[Danmac]

You ask Mestemia to listen to the professionals and yet you yourself reject the professionals when it comes to things like evolutionary biology.

"Do as I say and not as I do"

I listen to professionals that disagree with those professionals.

 

[Danmac]

I'll consider anything and accept whatever the evidence seems to support.

So basically, you accept the Theory of Evolution in its entirety, you're just holding out for something special or different for homo sapiens? Is that your position?

A separate process yes.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

the account in hebrew does not say that the sun was 'created' on the 4th day. It says 'Let there become lights in the firmament of the heavens' ...the hebrew word used here means 'become' as opposed to the word 'create' mentioned in Vs 1 . There is a big difference.

So then you want to ignore the first part of Genesis 1:16 which says, "And God made two great lights..." and the first part of Genesis 1:17 which says, "And God set them in the firmament..."? Genesis is very specific that these two lights were made on the fourth day, not on the first.

so we should all stop using the phrase 'moonlight' seeing the moon is not a 'light in itself' ? Perhaps we are also not aware of this seeing we continue to use such a silly phrase.

Wow, you completely missed the point of what I said. You claimed that the author(s) of Genesis "wrote truth under inspiration from God". If that were the case then I would expect them to actually get the facts right. They didn't. In fact, they weren't even close.

 

[McBell]

I find no fault with the trainer, you do. Probably because you know more than the trainer.

You find no fault with teaching an animal to be immoral?

You see, that is your problem. You need to learn to listen to the professionals instead of knowing more than they do. Know it alls eventually run into trouble. Of course I'm sure you already know that.

Kettle, meet pot.

As much as you like to date yourself, I'm not sure that you find it hard to listen to anyone other than you. I'll bet you get a warm fuzzy feeling up your leg every time you hear you talk.

You really are the epitome of hypocrisy, aren't you?

 

[McBell]

I figured I would take time out and give you a little of your own medicine. Sometimes we have to stoop to foolishness to get our point across. I can give as good as I get.

Hey, whatever it takes to justify your blatant hypocrisy, right?

 

[Gunfingers]

I'm not sure I understand your question.

Fair enough. I'll try to elucidate.

The first question is simply asking for a definition of "information" as it pertains to biology. Biologists don't really use this term because while a genome may contain more or less chromosomes, and those chromosomes may be longer or shorter, this does not indicate an organism is more or less complex. Humans have 46 chromosomes, for example, where a certain species of rice has over a thousand. And of the humans' 46 chromosomes, most of the coded pairs are not expressed phenotypically. They're basically junk. So, given those facts, what do you mean when you say "information"?

In the case of the second, you claimed earlier that there are distinct "kinds" each with their own single common ancestor, but who share no common ancestors with each other. Because all extant biological evidence indicates that there are no hard lines between populations creationists like yourself have struggled to identify where one "kind" ends and another begins.

By your definition micro-evolution cannot produce different "kinds" because of reproductive isolation. When asked to clarify you acknowledged that an organism can be reproductively isolated from its ancestors through "loss of information." From this i gather that you believe reproductively isolated organisms are separate "kinds" unless their reproductive isolation was a product of information loss.

Scientifically speaking, that's a prediction. You have a hypothesis, and the hypothesis predicts that there are two causes of reproductive isolation (the lack of a common ancestor, and the loss of information). My question was how we could test that prediction. In other words, how could we determine that a housecat is reproductively isolated from a cheetah because the housecat lost information rather than because it's a different "kind" than a cheetah.