The battle of evolution vs creationism

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Categorical error.

You're using vague classifications to see patterns in larger and more general categories.

"Dog", "Cat", Fish" are only colloquial terms, not scientific, taxonomic, or cladistic.

Regardless of terminology...an animal has never been observed to produce a different kind of animal than what it is. You can get as scientific as you want, that doesn't change the fact that an animal is what it is, and isn't what it isn't. That is the problem with science sometimes....the over-analyzations.

Your arrogance and ignorance is duly noted.

:cigar:

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I think it was me who suggested that God used evolution.

Atheism would have a problem, sure.
Agnosticism too.
Evolution would not.
Naturalism would not either.

Pantheism and Panentheism are not in conflict with naturalism and not in conflict with evolution. In fact, they're very much harmonious with both naturalism and evolution.

It all boils down to that it's your, and only your specific lack of understanding of God, naturalism, and evolution. Nothing else.

Evolution is true. Deal with it and adjust your view of God accordingly.

If you believe God used evolution in creation...then you admit that God exists..so how on earth are you saying naturalism would not suffer is beyond me, unless you just don't know what naturalism is or something. Second, I admit, God could have used evolution, but what that means is evolution is not something that can just occur without Intelligent Design....so either way my point is still made no matter how you put it.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

And the bigger fool says in his heart, "I, and only I know the True God(tm), and I would never listen to anyone else and learn anything new besides what I can read in an ancient book written by fishermen and sheepherders."

So the virtue and truth value of a book is based on occupation? I didn't know that, thank you for that sparkling revelation.

 

[Ouroboros]

Regardless of terminology...an animal has never been observed to produce a different kind of animal than what it is. You can get as scientific as you want, that doesn't change the fact that an animal is what it is, and isn't what it isn't. That is the problem with science sometimes....the over-analyzations.

It shows that you haven't studied how evolution works or anything in genetics.

"Kind" is not a scientific term either. It's a term used by creationists to move the goalpost.

The fossil record is extremely details for many different lines of animals. Look into horses, whales, rats, bats, dinosaurs, birds, ...

 

[Ouroboros]

If you believe God used evolution in creation...then you admit that God exists..so how on earth are you saying naturalism would not suffer is beyond me, unless you just don't know what naturalism is or something. Second, I admit, God could have used evolution, but what that means is evolution is not something that can just occur without Intelligent Design....so either way my point is still made no matter how you put it.

God is natural. The only reason why the concept is beyond your understanding is because you have locked yourself into a box of concepts that you refuse to break free from. Your point is only valid to you, simply because you don't understand any other point of view. You peek through a small hole and you conclude the world is that way and no one else can tell you otherwise. Free yourself.

 

[Ouroboros]

So the virtue and truth value of a book is based on occupation? I didn't know that, thank you for that sparkling revelation.

Huh? What occupation? You're a pastor?

 

[Iti oj]

If you believe God used evolution in creation...then you admit that God exists..so how on earth are you saying naturalism would not suffer is beyond me, unless you just don't know what naturalism is or something.

now this is interesting. If God does exist, and used evolution, along with physics, chemistry etc to make everything. Then the natural laws do express God. However if those mechanics are true, then so is the natural philosophy, even if god is behind it.

 

[Iti oj]

So the virtue and truth value of a book is based on occupation? I didn't know that, thank you for that sparkling revelation.

In fairness would you take serious a book I wrote about Christianity?

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you don't see the difference in microevolution (different varieties of the same kind), and macroevolution (changes to a different kind), then I can't help. Even in the definition you gave, evolutionists believe this on a much grand(er) scale than what is necessary.

As stated several times and by several posters, the only difference is time. They both operate on the exact same mechanisms.

You're the one that needs the help. Clearly. I really don't understand how you're not able to take in information.

 

[adi2d]

I am telling you that dogs produce dogs and cats produce cats. If there is any exception to that, then I haven't seen it yet. Come to think of it, neither have you. If me saying dogs produce dogs is wrong, then I don't want to be right.

I have not seen it either but you said God is life and He created all the kinds. So that (in your mind at least) is one kind of life creating other kinds of life. So that would be an exception

 

[Iti oj]

Listen it is impossible to refute something with out a working knowledge of it. Maybe you are right but until you understand the theory and its evidences you will never say anything intelligent, be taking serious, or make a valid point.

This. Please.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The body of evidence is that dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats.

The body of evidence is that evolution is a fact of life. It would not be accepted science if the evidence did not confirm it in every single way.

Seriously, which do you think it is? That 1) Every scientist in the world since Darwin's time in the fields of genetics, geology, biology, chemistry, paleontology, paleobotany, archaeology, zoology, and practically every other field of science in existence are completely mistaken and have reached a totally wrong conclusion OR that 2) You are ignorant on the subject of evolution and/or are mistaken.

Think long and hard about that.

Those are not particular subjects of interest to me.

The question was, do you accept them as factual in nature?

 

[SkepticThinker]

John Lennox isn't a scientist either.

At least he's a mathematician and a philosopher of science.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am telling you that dogs produce dogs and cats produce cats. If there is any exception to that, then I haven't seen it yet. Come to think of it, neither have you. If me saying dogs produce dogs is wrong, then I don't want to be right.

You are still saying the sky is pineapples.

Look into genetics a little bit. There are plenty of good examples on this thread, if you would only take the time to educate yourself. Seriously, what do you have against learning?

 

[McBell]

Oh and what lies and deceit would that be, Mest?

The ones you keep telling yourself in order to hold unto your evolution is not true mantra.

I sincerely hope for your sake that your god does not exist, because if he disagrees with lies, deceit, and dishonesty like you claim, you are in a lot of trouble with him.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Wait a minute, Dr. Craig is not a serious academic? That is absolutely ridiculous.

I understand that you like him, and share the same religious faith positions as he does, but he isn't really a credible scholar- certainly not in theology or the philosophy of religion at any rate. Apparently he has some distinction with respect to his contributions to the "A-theory" of time, but other than that, his views are not relevant, he has made no vital contributions, his work is not influential, you will not typically see other scholars cite him in academic journals (even in relevant fields), and his reputation among his peers is extremely poor.

But he tries to defend the indefensible, which endears himself to the faithful; for whatever that's worth. I suppose he gets a couple of kudos points for having the cajones to stick his neck out for a view that is laughably untenable, though.

 

[Quagmire]

I am telling you that dogs produce dogs and cats produce cats. If there is any exception to that, then I haven't seen it yet. Come to think of it, neither have you. If me saying dogs produce dogs is wrong, then I don't want to be right.

Apparently not. From another thread:

Regardless, a dog will never produce a non-dog.

Don't be too sure about that, scientists have already observed it working in reverse, ie., a non-dog producing a dog: http://boingboing.net/2005/03/04/turning-foxes-into-d.html

A couple of rather startling things that the article doesn't mention is that along with the personality traits and specifically dog-like behaviorisms, the offspring of the control-bred foxes even started to develop some specifically dog-like physical characteristics: black and white and/or spotted pelts, floppy ears, blue eyes, and curved tails.

Bet you won't respond to it this time either.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Apparently not. From another thread:



Bet you won't respond to it this time either.

Don't you know a fox is a kind of dog?

If it has 4 legs and a tail, it's a dog, except when it's a cat...or a bear...or a deer....

I've witnessed an Ant giving birth to a fungus...sure the fungus killed said ant while doing so...but an Ant must be a type of fungus.

 

[Parsimony]

Who here wants the very next thing that Call_of_the_Wild addresses to be the endogenous retrovirus (ERV) issue?

*Raises Hand*

For all who are willing, I propose that we temporarily suspend all other debating until CotW has demonstrated his claimed ability to explain the ERV similarities between humans and chimpanzee using the creationism model. The reason I ask for this is because of this statement:

Yeah but the other posts normally come from what I like to call "quick fires", posts I can respond quickly too. Your post was not a "quick fire", and by the time I finish responding to it I will be to mentally drained to respond to anything else.

If we can agree to hold off on responses unrelated to the ERVs, then CotW won't really have any excuse for not addressing it. Alternatively, everyone here could just keep pushing the ERV issue relentlessly until he either addresses it or ignores it and leaves. I suspect that he will still come up with some other excuse. If he could have addressed it, I'm sure he would have already if for no reason other than to shut me up.

For all interested parties, here are some links with some background information on ERVs and related concepts:
*Endogenous retrovirus - Wikipedia
*Long terminal repeat - Wikipedia
*The Gag, Pol and Env Proteins
*Three Layers of Endogenous Retroviral Evidence for the Evolutionary Model
*Responding to the "Evolution News & Views" articles addressing my essay on the ERV evidence for common ancestry
*Demystified...Human endogenous retroviruses

 

[johnhanks]

If you don't see the difference in microevolution (different varieties of the same kind), and macroevolution (changes to a different kind), then I can't help.

Call, I think if anyone on this forum wanted help understanding evolution, you are the last person they'd turn to.

Microevolution: the word CAT changes to COT.
Macroevolution: the word CAT changes to COT which changes to COG which changes to DOG. (And no, I'm not suggesting dogs really evolved from cats.)

As I and others have patiently explained, the micro/macro distinction is one of degree only. So I ask you yet again: what mechanism do you know of (but science somehow hasn't detected) that stops the process at COT?