In The Zone

[Earthling]

Haha. High school was a few years ago for me. Do I get to call you a geezer yet?

I prefer the term wanker, if you don't mind, young man.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Moving on in the video, I think Aron and Kent both make excellent points. First Aron says that he thinks we should both start from not believing anything and just review the possibilities. That's what I'm trying to do here.

Kent makes the point which I've made in this thread, more or less, that just because you draw some lines on a piece of paper don't make something true.

It comes down to this. The Bible says, simply, that God created all living things, plants, animals and man, according to their kind. Genesis 1:12 The seed of which is in them.

Science has all sorts of ideas on how things are related which basically amount to similarities in organisms. That's fine, but it doesn't demonstrate the biblical kind as false until it makes the claim that certain organisms have a common ancestor.

That's the bottom line. That's where evolution and the Biblical kind are at odds. There may be more to it but that's the simple face of it.

But people do not merely draw lines on paper. One must be able to justify those lines. There are countless fossils that allow us to trace the various lineages back through time.

And the ideas of science are testable and confirmable. If you can't think of a way to reasonably test the creationism myths then that is all that they are. In the sciences creationism is in the realm of "not even wrong" totally worthless. And almost certainly wrong. There is no reason at all that you can find to believe those stories except for the fact that it is found in your book of myths.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I prefer the term wanker, if you don't mind, young man.

I have a feeling that you do not know what 'wanker' means. Do you really prefer to be called that?

 

[Earthling]

But people do not merely draw lines on paper. One must be able to justify those lines. There are countless fossils that allow us to trace the various lineages back through time.

And the ideas of science are testable and confirmable. If you can't think of a way to reasonably test the creationism myths then that is all that they are. In the sciences creationism is in the realm of "not even wrong" totally worthless. And almost certainly wrong. There is no reason at all that you can find to believe those stories except for the fact that it is found in your book of myths.

Okay, well back to the subject, and testing your claim, the Bible says that plants, animals and mankind all were created according to their kind, containing their own seed. If that were true what we would see, and we wouldn't need a laboratory or chart to see it - is dogs making cats and cats making dogs.

This is what we see.

I'll ask this question again. Science says that an elephant and a pine tree are related. They have a common ancestor. What is that ancestor?

 

[Earthling]

I have a feeling that you do not know what 'wanker' means. Do you really prefer to be called that?

Well, I . . . let me google it . . .

Whoops! I thought it was just a grumpy old person. Well, that explains the wank.

Color me embarrassed. No, on second thought geezer will do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, well back to the subject, and testing your claim, the Bible says that plants, animals and mankind all were created according to their kind, containing their own seed. If that were true what we would see, and we wouldn't need a laboratory or chart to see it - is dogs making cats and cats making dogs.

This is what we see.

I'll ask this question again. Science says that an elephant and a pine tree are related. They have a common ancestor. What is that ancestor?

Nope, failed test. That is what we would see with evolution as well.

I already answered your question. It would have been a single celled eukaryote.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Aron really knows his stuff. Here is a link to a series that he is doing on the line of descent that led to man. it shows some of the many fossils involved and is at this date 36 episodes long, with probably 6 to 8 left to get to man. It allows one to see how those "lines on paper" are much more than lines on paper. The lines on paper are the conclusions that we can draw from almost endless evidence:

Systematic Classification of Life - YouTube

When I hear Kent disparaging that which he can never understand it is rather irritating. He is like a child that cannot do addition past 2 + 2 disparaging calculus.

 

[Earthling]

Nope, failed test. That is what we would see with evolution as well.

Then what's the point of this discussion?

I already answered your question. It would have been a single celled eukaryote.

Such as?

In other words you don't know. There is no evidence for it, and let me clarify, by evidence I mean something other than a chart with a line from an elephant and a pine tree leading to a single celled eukaryote. You are talking about algae and a few fungi, correct? What evidence is there that they could be an ancestor of an elephant and a pine tree. You haven't created one of these from algae and fungi, have you. You haven't seen algae and fungi produce an elephant or a pine tree, have you?

Please tell me it isn't a chart with a line from an elephant and a pine tree leading to algae and fungi.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then what's the point of this discussion?

I am trying to help you see your errors. You gave a failed test. That is your fault, not mine. If you want to call it a hypothesis you need to have a valid test. One that would support your claims and not that of the evolution side. That should have been obvious.

Such as?

In other words you don't know. There is no evidence for it, and let me clarify, by evidence I mean something other than a chart with a line from an elephant and a pine tree leading to a single celled eukaryote. You are talking about algae and a few fungi, correct? What evidence is there that they could be an ancestor of an elephant and a pine tree. You haven't created one of these from algae and fungi, have you. You haven't seen algae and fungi produce an elephant or a pine tree, have you?

Please tell me it isn't a chart with a line from an elephant and a pine tree leading to algae and fungi.

What do you mean "such as"? That seems to be a pointless question. And no, we do know. We can trace back to that point. Remember, just because you do not know does not mean that others do not know.

And no, algae are modern examples of life.

And please, don't be rude. Asking rather idiotic questions is being rude.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's get back to the video where Aron constantly tears Kent a new one. Kent never could give examples of a created kind. He could only give examples of specific species within a created kind but to give created kind he would have to do at least as well as I did by point out that the common ancestor of the pine tree and the elephant was a single celled eukaryote. He could not even be that general.

 

[Earthling]

I am trying to help you see your errors. You gave a failed test. That is your fault, not mine. If you want to call it a hypothesis you need to have a valid test. One that would support your claims and not that of the evolution side. That should have been obvious.

Your joking. The Bible said, more or less, that things were created with their seed according to their kind. You said that was evolution, if memory serves me.

What do you mean "such as"?

Such as what's the ancestor?!

That seems to be a pointless question. And no, we do know. We can trace back to that point. Remember, just because you do not know does not mean that others do not know.

Wow. You know, to me it's pretty obvious that either you don't know what you are talking about or your theory is just straight up bull****.

What's the point that was traced back to? And if you say that that question is rude and idiotic this thread is done.

And no, algae are modern examples of life.

And please, don't be rude. Asking rather idiotic questions is being rude.

Ok. It isn't algae. Fungi then? You said single celled eukaryote. Are not algae and fungi examples of this? If not what is? What is the common ancestor for the pine tree and the elephant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your joking. The Bible said, more or less, that things were created with their seed according to their kind. You said that was evolution, if memory serves me.

No, I am not joking. Please learn what you are trying to argue against. When you use a failed example, which is what you did, you fail.

Such as what's the ancestor?

Steve, his name was Steve.

Wow. You know, to me it's pretty obvious that either you don't know what you are talking about or your theory is just straight up bull****.

What's the point that was traced back to? And if you say that that question is rude and idiotic this thread is done.

Now please, you are either lying or hiding your head in the sand.

And I already answered your question at least three times now. We can trace animal life back to where it was obvious that we came from single celled eukaryote, we can do the same with plant life.

Ok. It isn't algae. Fungi then? You said single celled eukaryote. Are not algae and fungi examples of this? If not what is? What is the common ancestor for the pine tree and the elephant.

No a different species at that time. Your argument is similar to accusing a cousin of yours mating with grandmaw to begin the family.

I am not answering a fourth time. "Steve" will have to do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Watching a Flat Earther trying to argue and the similarity between him and Hovind is rather amazing;

 

[Earthling]

No, I am not joking. Please learn what you are trying to argue against. When you use a failed example, which is what you did, you fail.

Did you not say it was evolution when I described the Biblical kind?

Steve, his name was Steve.

Heh heh. This made me laugh.

Now please, you are either lying or hiding your head in the sand.

And I already answered your question at least three times now. We can trace animal life back to where it was obvious that we came from single celled eukaryote, we can do the same with plant life.

You can't even say what it is. Steve is the most sensible answer you've given. At least that's something. It has a name. WHAT IS IT?

No a different species at that time. Your argument is similar to accusing a cousin of yours mating with grandmaw to begin the family.

I am not answering a fourth time. "Steve" will have to do.

Well, I'll be honest with you, dude, I think that's about as good as it gets.

I think I will mosey on over to the Bible forums and just start posting Bible stuff. At least that way I'll be ignored quietly.

This has been fun. I did learn a little bit. More actually than I suspected I would.

I'll see you around. . .

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did you not say it was evolution when I described the Biblical kind?

No, I said for the test that you proposed that evolution says the same thing. That makes your test pointless. Dogs cannot evolve into cats nor vice versa. They share a common ancestor.

Heh heh. This made me laugh.

Good, as long as you keep a sense of humor we might get somewhere.

You can't even say what it is. Steve is the most sensible answer you've given. At least that's something. It has a name. WHAT IS IT?

Actually I did. I said that he would have been a single celled eukaryote.

Well, I'll be honest with you, dude, I think that's about as good as it gets.

I think I will mosey on over to the Bible forums and just start posting Bible stuff. At least that way I'll be ignored quietly.

This has been fun. I did learn a little bit. More actually than I suspected I would.

I'll see you around. . .

The answer should have been clear enough for you. Unfortunately you want to hear that your cousin did your grandmaw to start the family. That is not how biology works. You probably did not learn anything, and that is unfortunate. Sadly you probably only fed your prejudices. If anything I am betting that you will be even more wrong (as hard as that is to believe of a Hovind supporter) than you were before.

Tell me, why don't you support the Flat Earth?

 

[Earthling]

No, I said for the test that you proposed that evolution says the same thing. That makes your test pointless. Dogs cannot evolve into cats nor vice versa. They share a common ancestor.

The term "they share a common ancestor" means nothing to me if dogs cannot evolve into cats or vice versa. That would mean that somewhere down the line something other than a cat brought about a cat.

Guess what? The common ancestor is God. He created them, can I get a hallelujah?! Amen, brother!

 

[Subduction Zone]

The term "they share a common ancestor" means nothing to me if dogs cannot evolve into cats or vice versa. That would mean that somewhere down the line something other than a cat brought about a cat.

Guess what? The common ancestor is God. He created them, can I get a hallelujah?! Amen, brother!

So you do not understand a simple term. Why didn't you say so.

You and your cousin share a common ancestor. Can either you or your cousin become your grandmother or your grandfather?

And guess what, somewhere down the line your grandfather sired something that was no himself. This is not a hard idea to understand.


Let's look at dogs. Artificial selection causes new breeds to arise. Those breeds did not exist until they were brought into existence by man. German shepherds and chihuahuas share a common ancestor. And though one could eventually breed a dog that looked like a German shepherd from a chihuahua it would not be a German shepherd. It would never be recognized as such by the AKC or other governing bodies. Also I can guarantee that even though they might look alike there would be genetic differences. There is no going back in evolution. Cats cannot breed backwards into their common ancestor with dogs. Dogs cannot breed backwards either. That would be putting a goal on evolution which is a statistical impossibility.

That is why you are still an ape, but your descendants could never turn into chimpanzees. That would involve evolving backwards and the odds against that are beyond astronomical.

 

[viole]

Just calling an ape a human and a human an ape doesn't mean you can rationally state that an ape can produce a human. This is how evolution works. Just call things something else and make it almost like true.

How desperate do you have to be to reject God. Just reject him without the nonsensical adaptations.

I am not desperate at all. I know there is no God.

And yours is a non sequitur. On this part of the world, virtually all Christians accept evolution and common descent, well the one who went to school, at least. In Sweden, for instance, it is prohibited to teach anything else in all schools, even the religious ones, and the Church of Sweden has no problem whatsoever with that (only Muslims complain).

Therefore, it should be obvious that accepting evolution (and that we are still great apes) does not entail rejection of God.

And we are still apes. Sorry. But I am going to be magnanimous and settle for primate.

Does it feel better?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not desperate at all. I know there is no God.

And yours is a non sequitur. On this part of the world, virtually all Christians accept evolution and common descent, well the one who went to school, at least. In Sweden, for instance, it is prohibited to teach anything else in all schools, even the religious ones, and the Church of Sweden has no problem whatsoever with that (only Muslims complain).

Therefore, it should be obvious that accepting evolution (and that we are still great apes) does not entail rejection of God.

And we are still apes. Sorry. But I am going to be magnanimous and settle for primate.

Does it feel better?

Ciao

- viole

DNA and cladistics made it obvious that we are apes. Chimps and bonobos, which creationists will admit are apes, are more closely related to us than they are to other apes. It makes no sense to say that they are apes, but that their closest relatives are not apes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I stopped the video when Kent admitted that they were both eukariotes after insisting that it didn't matter. At this point I'm thinking that it really doesn't matter that they are relatives. These terms are all classifications and so to me it sounds like the two (Hovind and Ra) are trying to have a conversation while, in effect, speaking different languages. This annoys me.



Okay. Thank you, sir.



Okay. Very good.



I can see why that would be problematic for the creationist. It seems to me a case of classification and it's a great deal more difficult to establish what a biblical kind is than a biological kind. I've posted the difference between the modern day biological term and the Biblical term in a previous post. I'm not sure that you've had the opportunity to respond. If so, disregard this portion of this post.

A classification is constructed to match the actual relationships of the organisms being classified based on evidence developed from observation of the organisms themselves. Ideally, the classification should be one to one with the group of organisms, but that is clearly an ideal that is not practical to conceive with every living thing on earth. But this does not prevent us from what we have achieved so far in establishing relationships and is a vast body of evidence to continue in refining the classification and re-enforcing the overall picture of relatedness.

Scientists are not unaware of the limitations of classifications and the problems that exist with them. Right now, we do not know all the species that exist. We have estimates, but no exact number and likely never will. That does not mean the search for new species is off. Just a realistic understanding of the undertaking. Classifications of many species are based on morphological characters of specimens that have been long dead and are not in their natural setting. The specimens cannot be subjected to breeding experiments to determine if they are true species in many cases. Some groups are more well studied than others. Large organisms and organisms of economic importance are more well studied.

These are details within the established system. Much like arguing over the color of brick to use on the walkways around a home. That detail may be important, but the house will not fall, just over that one issue.