Creationists, please provide evidence

[Bereanz]

How can a new species be within an existing species?

If you are going to castegate me in a condencending and patronising way as to your preception of my lack of understanding of TOE and advice me that you have reported me to the mods, and then ask me a question like this, I have to conclude from this question that you are intentionally goading me or that you yourself have little or no understanding of TOE. Stop monkeying about please. Im not afraid of the consequences of speaking the truth nor am I burdened by the tyranny of being understood by you.

 

[Tristesse]

If a "kind," as a creationist would call it, can only mate with a member of the same kind, does this mean that, horses and donkeys are the same "kind?" And what "kind" would a mule belong too? seeing as how it is incapabile of producing offspring.

 

[Bereanz]

Is your position that no new species has ever evolved?

If I show you scientific papers describing the evolution of a new species, will you change your position?

The true scientific position is that a species evolving into an intirely differrent species has never been observed. But variation and adaption of say primroses, moths, butterflies and snails, for example, has been observed.

Id like to see your scientific papers. If they prove evolution of a species into another species (intirely above and beyond the accepted and proven reality of adaption within a species) I will change my position. Yes.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

But isnt that like the Pot who called the Kettle Black?

I'm not sure what you mean.

Adaption within a species is observed tested and proven Fact, which nobody would deny. So this is "Evolution" Fact.

OK.

Because of this, innocent students have been duped in to believing adaption from one species into another must also be fact.

If you are referring to speciation then I agree because it is fact but evolution does not say pigs will sprout wings or hippos will develop gills.

But it has NEVER been observed and tested. So this is EVOLUTION MYTH!

It sure has...

The science that has been observed and tested is in alignment with the Bible, which lends credence to the creation account IE scientific proof that "God did it" just as He said He did.

Actually it hasn't.

However to say "God did it" without providing sufficient evidence is as futile and credulous as believing "modern" man evolved from lower primates without proof.

I can show how Influenza has evolved. Can you show how your god created?

I didnt say you used the other term, but it is a term used by Evolutionary Biologists. Do you know what it means? I dont.

I've never seen the term used by biologist. Do you have a reference?

 

[Bereanz]

It sure has...

Prove it

Actually it hasn't.

Actually it has

I can show how Influenza has evolved. Can you show how your god created?

Species with in a species (if of course you term a virus as a species) Evolution fact. My point is the Bible shows how God created the world, science has not refuted this.

I've never seen the term used by biologist. Do you have a reference?

[/quote]

Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion

 

[Tristesse]

Prove it



Actually it has



Species with in a species (if of course you term a virus as a species) Evolution fact. My point is the Bible shows how God created the world, science has not refuted this.

I'll ask my question again. Are horses and donkeys the same species?

And the bible doesn't show HOW god created the world, it ASSERTS that he created the world. Big differnce.

 

[Autodidact]

If you are going to castegate me in a condencending and patronising way as to your preception of my lack of understanding of TOE and advice me that you have reported me to the mods, and then ask me a question like this, I have to conclude from this question that you are intentionally goading me or that you yourself have little or no understanding of TOE. Stop monkeying about please. Im not afraid of the consequences of speaking the truth nor am I burdened by the tyranny of being understood by you.

So I take it you cannot answer the question?

 

[Father Heathen]

you missed what I was saying... Why - why does evolution only apply to living organisms? What differentiates living organisms from non-living inanimate materials?

The ability to breed and adapt, obviously.

Both are made up of the same stuff, just atoms and energy right? If it's all just atoms and energy, there should be no difference, everything should evolve.

The difference, as has already been stated, is that evolution is a biological process of adaptation. Do atoms breed, multiply and pass on genetic code? No.

some chunks of matter have something else though - something that makes them think, and act, and procreate.... there is something more than just matter and energy at play...

Yes, the quality of being a living organism, which is the only thing ToE applies to.

Just survival? quartz is still around, it has survived and will survive longer than any of us.

Quartz neither lives nor dies, and so your analogy is rather retarded.

There is more to life than just survival - at least there is more to my life than just trying to survive...

No ****. No one has claimed otherwise, so why make such a silly, irrelevant statement? Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with philosophy, ethics, the meaning of life, etc. Go read a book. Education is your friend.

Animate vs. inanimate objects... there is a force/power/intelligence which animates.

You're really racking up the non sequiturs. Seriously, if you don't even know what evolution actually is then you have absolutely no business trying to argue against it.

 

[Bereanz]

So I take it you cannot answer the question?

You can take it to the bank that I won't answer your questions until you have answered mine.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Prove it

See Nylon Eating Bacteria. I've posted the information here a couple times.

Actually it has

Prove it......

Species with in a species (if of course you term a virus as a species) Evolution fact.

I've never heard of a "species within a species"

My point is the Bible shows how God created the world, science has not refuted this.

The bible doesn't prove it. It "says" that is was created.

Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion

I see. Yes he may have used that term but what was the context in which he used it? I have seen "Scientific Uncertainty" and I agree with its definition. Scientist will come to an agreement on specific theories but because science is always open to new discovery it remains a field of uncertainty. This is how science works. Certainty is something one see in mathmatics.

 

[Father Heathen]

It occurs to computer programs too.

Let's not confuse them any further.

 

[Bereanz]

I'll ask my question again. Are horses and donkeys the same species?

And the bible doesn't show HOW god created the world, it ASSERTS that he created the world. Big differnce.

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

No. They are not the same species, but they are from the same family (the Latin name for the family is Equidae). Donkeys were first domesticated around 3000 BC, approximately the same time as the horse.

Donkeys and horses can be bred together to produce a mule (made by breeding a male donkey with a female horse) or a hinny (rarer, made by breeding a female donkey with a male horse). The crossbreeds are sterile (they cannot reproduce) - the only way to get a mule or a hinny is by breeding together donkeys and horses.
Source(s):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equidae



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey

• 3 years ago
• Report Abuse

Yes the Bible a aserts/shows that God created the world, supported/unrefuted by Science
Darwin's "The Origin of Species" aserts/shows that species evolved into other species, not supported by science.

I know which one I trust more. Without words, we've all got nothin! If you want to debate semantics be my quest

 

[Autodidact]

The true scientific position is that a species evolving into an intirely differrent species has never been observed. But variation and adaption of say primroses, moths, butterflies and snails, for example, has been observed.

Id like to see your scientific papers. If they prove evolution of a species into another species (intirely above and beyond the accepted and proven reality of adaption within a species) I will change my position. Yes.

Here you go:
London Underground Mosquito:
Byrne, K. and R. A. Nichols, 1999. Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: differentiation between surface and subterranean populations. Heredity 82: 7-15.

Sticklebacks: Schilthuizen, Menno., 2001. Frogs, Flies, and Dandelions: the Making of Species, Oxford Univ. Press, esp. chap. 1.

Mimulus: Macnair, M. R., 1989. A new species of Mimulus endemic to copper mines in California. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 100: 1-14.

Goatsbeard: Salsifies are one example where hybrid speciation has been observed. In the early 1900s, humans introduced three species of goatsbeard into North America. These species, the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius), are now common weeds in urban wastelands. In the 1950s, botanists found two new species in the regions of Idaho and Washington, where the three already known species overlapped. [wiki]

*Prepares to watch some goalposts getting pushed back*

 

[Autodidact]

You can take it to the bank that I won't answer your questions until you have answered mine.

Well, just let me know if you're ever interested in addressing the OP. If not, why are you here? btw, why don't you want to answer the question?

 

[Autodidact]

Yes the Bible a aserts/shows that God created the world, supported/unrefuted by Science

Of course. Science is not about God, and can never refute this assertion. You do know what science is, right?

Darwin's "The Origin of Species" aserts/shows that species evolved into other species, not supported by science.

Except when it is. See above.

 

[Bereanz]

See Nylon Eating Bacteria. I've posted the information here a couple times.




Prove it......



I've never heard of a "species within a species"



The bible doesn't prove it. It "says" that is was created.




I see. Yes he may have used that term but what was the context in which he used it? I have seen "Scientific Uncertainty" and I agree with its definition. Scientist will come to an agreement on specific theories but because science is always open to new discovery it remains a field of uncertainty. This is how science works. Certainty is something one see in mathmatics.

Yove never seen evolution of a species within a species? Then stop wasting my time, especialy since your evidence is evidence of that very same thing.

By the way, I've never seen evolution of a species into an intirely different species, have you? If so where I can score some of what you've been taking?

 

[Tristesse]

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

No. They are not the same species, but they are from the same family (the Latin name for the family is Equidae). Donkeys were first domesticated around 3000 BC, approximately the same time as the horse.

Donkeys and horses can be bred together to produce a mule (made by breeding a male donkey with a female horse) or a hinny (rarer, made by breeding a female donkey with a male horse). The crossbreeds are sterile (they cannot reproduce) - the only way to get a mule or a hinny is by breeding together donkeys and horses.
Source(s):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equidae



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey

• 3 years ago
• Report Abuse

Yes the Bible a aserts/shows that God created the world, supported/unrefuted by Science
Darwin's "The Origin of Species" aserts/shows that species evolved into other species, not supported by science.

I know which one I trust more. Without words, we've all got nothin! If you want to debate semantics be my quest

I understand the the relation between donkeys and horses. But you missed my point. If they're not part of the same species, which they're not. Then how could they, from a biblical perspective, mate to produce an infertile offsring?

 

[Bereanz]

Of course. Science is not about God, and can never refute this assertion. You do know what science is, right?
Except when it is. See above.

I agree Science is not about God. Yes I do know what science is about. It's about variafiable tested observed results beyond a shadow of doubt before it can be proven to be true and accurate. Its not a best guess, join the dots excercise. Scientists are allowed to theorize that something might be true while they are in the process of conducting their research, thats as far as it goes. They are allowed to say "we believe" etc etc. But they can not says THIS IS PROVEN FACT, until it has been. For the most part a lot of what you see, to be calling "science" belongs in the field of philosophy, and I suppose you can argue that is science as well.

Science means Knowldege, thats all!! Some thing that is known to be true. It's conducted by normal human beings, not space men or giant minds, untouvahble or unreachable by mere mortals. Scientist are not gods, you seem to be making them so. That's cultish! Not science

The fact that most scientists "believe" in evolution does not make it scientific.

 

[Bereanz]

I understand the the relation between donkeys and horses. But you missed my point. If they're not part of the same species, which they're not. Then how could they, from a biblical perspective, mate to produce an infertile offsring?

Whatever! You don't have a point. They are part of the same species/family. Go away.

 

[Father Heathen]

The fact that most scientists "believe" in evolution does not make it scientific.

The fact that it follows the scientific method makes it scientific. What's not scientific is ignoring logic and evidence for superstition's sake.