I've Sacrificed my belief in Evolution for Religion

[1robin]

If I sat at a construction site for 5 minutes and didn't see a complete building being made from start to finish, can I say that buildings must be created by God?

I didn't draw that conclusion but it does show that buildings require an intelligent creator. What I said was that no one has observed one breeding population evolve into another. I didn't mention God.

Consider them destroyed:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

As stated at the moment I do not have time to investigate the links your providing. Can you post the best example of what I requested from your link to save me some time? Keep in mind that what a biologist means by the word macroevolution is not necessary the same as what the bible means by kind.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

This proves that 14 creatures existed with somewhat similar looking heads. Fossils are not evidence for any kind of evolution.

Why aren't fossils evidence? It would seem to me that if humans evolved from an ancestor shared with other apes that there should have been species in the past that had a mixture of ape and human features. So why aren't fossils that have those features evidence for the theory? Please explain.

What I said is the only thing that has ever been observed is change within breeding populations. Kind being most often translated as breeding populations.

We also observe fossils and genomes, all of which contain evidence of what happened in the past. Why do you ignore these observations?

Yes they are the same kind, they are all finches.

How do you determine if different species belong to the same kind?

This sounds like genetic manipulation not a natural event.

Until you show us what genetic manipulation was done the example stands. All you are doing is demonstrating your refusal to accept the very evidence you are asking for.

 

[1robin]

I see your problem. You have unrealistic expectations. You are demanding to directly observe a form of evolution that would refute the theory of evolution. That is extremely unrealistic. You also have an overly limited definition of the word "observe". We can observe the sort of evidence that you demand in the fossil record.

I did not request what you say I did. I don't even understand what your talking about. I said that what the bible suggests is exactly what we have observed. You have admitted that this in fact is true. I don't care why it is true, I only care that it is true.

Common ancestry is a biological fact. It is supported by literally mountains of evidence. If you refuse to learn you will not be able to understand your errors. Understanding what is and what is not evidence is a must. So is understanding the concept of observation.

No, common descent is a faith based position which consists of an ounce of data and a ton of theory.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

What I said was that no one has observed one breeding population evolve into another.

What we do have is observations consistent with separate species sharing a common ancestor. We call that evidence.

Can you explain why you expect to see millions of years worth of evolution in just a few hundred years?

 

[1robin]

Here are 29:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

You already posted this link and I already addressed it.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I did not request what you say I did. I don't even understand what your talking about. I said that what the bible suggests is exactly what we have observed. You have admitted that this in fact is true. I don't care why it is true, I only care that it is true.

Do you agree that humans and other primates are in the same kind since we are all primates?

Do you agree that humans and all other mammals are in the mammal kind?

No, common descent is a faith based position which consists of an ounce of data and a ton of theory.

Would you be willing to discuss endogenous retroviruses?

 

[1robin]

Again the false claim about not posting evidence. Just because you may not understand the concept of evidence does not mean that evidence has not been posted to you.

Let me help a bit. This is an excellent primer on the concept of scientific evidence:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis."

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

Evidence is a set of data which makes a hypothesis more likely by its existence but I do not want to debate semantic technicalities so I will explain what I am asking for the hundredth time. I am asking for evidence which demonstrates that change between "kinds" is a fact. Concentrating on etymology instead of providing what I have asked for (that you have admitted you can't) is the sign of a failed argument. I do not care what arbitrary definitions of English terms you point to, I want evidence that change between "kinds" has in fact occurred.

 

[1robin]

You believe something written 3000 years ago, over what has been written in the past 100 years.

What was said 3000 years ago is perfectly consistent with what has been proven and observed in the last 100 years.

Three thousand years ago people also believed the flat earth was the center of everything. I guess you believe that too.

Not the people who wrote what it is I was referring to. I was talking about what Moses wrote not what everyone else might have thought. Just because I believe what a specific person stated 3000 years ago does not mean I have to accept what everyone believed 3000 years ago. Please recalibrate and try again.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I am asking for evidence which demonstrates that change between "kinds" is a fact.

There 13 species of finches on the Galapagos islands alone. Those are 13 separate breeding populations. Across the world, there are hundreds of finch species that are separate breeding populations. You claim that finches are a kind, correct? If so, how are you determining which species do or do not belong to a kind?

 

[1robin]

They are saying the same thing.

No they aren't, and I do not know how you would be aware of everything everyone has said to me in this thread.

Before you said that a given example didn't count because they were still finches. There are tons of different breeding populations of finches. If you are saying that finches are a kind then you are already saying that new and separate breeding populations can evolve within a kind.

I only said that five minutes ago but you said I did so several days ago. How did you do that?

The only thing anyone has actually seen is a bunch of finches. No one has seen one type of finch become another type. The people who think that are operating on faith.

Cows and whales are both mammals, so they are in the same kind.

I do not think kind is an official taxonomy classification. However it does not matter because I am talking about what the bible meant by kind. It is most often translated as a breeding population. The bible defines it's own terms and what biologist think their own terms mean is irrelevant.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The only thing anyone has actually seen is a bunch of finches. No one has seen one type of finch become another type. The people who think that are operating on faith.

We also see bunches of primates that includes humans. We also see bunches of mammals that include humans. We also see bunches of vertebrates that include humans.

Do you accept that humans share a common ancestor with all of these other species since they are within those kinds?

However it does not matter because I am talking about what the bible meant by kind. It is most often translated as a breeding population.

There are hundreds of separate breeding populations of birds within the category called finches. Therefore, you are deviating from what the bible meant.

 

[Jose Fly]

The bible claims evolution only occurs within breeding populations. I affirm that and claim no one has observed one breeding population evolve into another.

So to counter my position you must show that in fact one breeding population is known to have evolved into another.

So if you were presented with a documented example of a population giving rise to a new population that was completely unable to breed with the original population, your position would be negated?

 

[1robin]

I am sorry, but this does not make any sense. It indicates and incorrect understanding of what evolution is.

Your posting too many times for me to possibly keep up with and your actually addressing responses I made to others?

I do not agree with your declarations and they are not arguments to begin with. Saying nu-uh is not an argument.

So you are reinterpreting the Bible in light of what we know about evolution?

. No, and this does not follow from anything I said. It is an off-ramp because you couldn't address what I actually said.

That is not what the theory of evolution says. It says that cows and whales have a common ancestor.

That is not what I have heard evolutionists claim, however even if it was I was just using short hand to indicate the type of thing I am looking for.

Again, this appears to tell us that you misunderstand how evolution occurs.

Again, declarations are not arguments. I could would type "your wrong" to everything you say if they were.

You need to drop the strawman version of evolution first. And define your terminology better. What you are demanding is rather difficult to understand due to this strawman version of evolutoin.

What I said is not a straw man because it has nothing to do with how biologists describe the theory of evolution. I do not care what terms evolutionists use, I care what has actually happened. Make actual arguments instead of declarations and circling the drain of semantic technicalities.

In the theory of evolution there is no "Change of kind". That is a creationist misconception.

That is irrelevant and I have said over and over and over that what I am talking about is the BIBLICAL interpretation of "kind" not what the evolutionary definition of the term "kind". How many times am I supposed to point these things out without you comprehending what I am saying? I spend all my time straightening out your misconceptions instead of evaluating actual evidence of what I requested.

 

[1robin]

As usual, you have not provided one shred of evidence nor any scientific link to support your position that "micro-evolution" somehow miraculously stops short of "macro-evolution", and yet I provided you with links to show there is no such wall between the two. So, maybe actually put forth your evidence, 1robin, along with link(s). It is entirely hypocritical for you to demand evidence from us, some of which as been provided for you and some others here, whereas you produce nothing back in return.

So, maybe either produce this evidence or, if you can't, maybe bring yourself to admit that you don't have any. Is that really too much to ask?

I hold the faith position. My burden is only the absence of a defeater. So I have requested that others provide that defeater. Only one person so far has even made the attempt.

My claim is that strong evidence against my position does not exist. No one can prove a negative so others must prove a positive. Until this occurs I have every warrant necessary to hold my beliefs. You need to understand what burdens different positions require.

 

[1robin]

See above.

I have.

 

[1robin]

You have never observed your fingernails growing. Therefore, you have no need to cut them. Right?

Your analogies are horrible. You do not need to do anything about macroevolution so your analogy makes no sense.

No one has ever observed a dinosaur. Therefore, dinosaurs never existed. This is in complete agreement with the bible. It is not consistent with known reality.

I did not say that change between breeding populations has never occurred. I said it has never been show to be true. Until it is the bible's claims are perfectly consistent with everything known.

If you're even a bit clever, you may learn the proper contraction for "you are" is "you're".

Another irrelevant semantic technicality that does absolutely nothing to prove your position is true or mine false. I hate grammar which is why I my position is biological not grammatical.

If you believe that I admitted that anything in the bible is accurate, your reading skills are even worse than your writing skills.

You admitted that what the bible says is consistent with what has been observed. You made a biological admission which is perfectly consistent with my theological claim.

 

[1robin]

No?

Then what did you mean when you said...

For pity's sake, what you quoted answered your own question.

1. I said that the absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence.
2. I also stated that the absence of proof means that the conclusion is not known to be true.

Therefor my faith claim is completely justified.

​

Of course not. That would be silly. That would be like saying an unknowable god is evidence for everything. I would never say anything like that.

Just the couple of things you have conceded is all that is necessary to justify my position. The burden of faith is the absence of a defeater. You can't provide a defeater (your own admission) my position is fully warranted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your posting too many times for me to possibly keep up with and your actually addressing responses I made to others?

I do not agree with your declarations and they are not arguments to begin with. Saying nu-uh is not an argument.



. No, and this does not follow from anything I said. It is an off-ramp because you couldn't address what I actually said.



That is not what I have heard evolutionists claim, however even if it was I was just using short hand to indicate the type of thing I am looking for.



Again, declarations are not arguments. I could would type "your wrong" to everything you say if they were.



What I said is not a straw man because it has nothing to do with how biologists describe the theory of evolution. I do not care what terms evolutionists use, I care what has actually happened. Make actual arguments instead of declarations and circling the drain of semantic technicalities.

That is irrelevant and I have said over and over and over that what I am talking about is the BIBLICAL interpretation of "kind" not what the evolutionary definition of the term "kind". How many times am I supposed to point these things out without you comprehending what I am saying? I spend all my time straightening out your misconceptions instead of evaluating actual evidence of what I requested.

Perhaps you should slow down a bit. Your posts are filled with errors so all you will get is a quick correction. Bring up your claims one at a time and we can go over them. Also you still have not made a proper definition of kind. Think of this a you try to define the term: How would you tell if two different populations were the same kind of not.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I did not say that change between breeding populations has never occurred. I said it has never been show to be true. Until it is the bible's claims are perfectly consistent with everything known.

There are hundreds of breeding populations of finches, yet you say that finches is a kind. Care to explain?

 

[Subduction Zone]

For pity's sake, what you quoted answered your own question.

1. I said that the absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence.

Correction, absence of evidence may be, but is not always, evidence of absence. If a supposed event would have left evidence and there is none than would be a case of evidence of absence.