The Theory of Evolution is supported by the evidence.

[Walkntune]

Johnhanks;1982912]

Look, Walkntune, with all possible respect the finest brains on the planet are trying to work out exactly what causes gravitational force. If you have some insight here that they don't, why aren't you sharing it with them?

Much greater minds then I have are working on the issue!

Well, the Earth's magnetic field is a real and measurable phenomenon, as is animals' exploitation of it. Where do you see the need for a supernatural agency in this?

Never said super natural!

As I said before, you are entitled to believe whatever you wish. Do you have any evidence that might persuade others to join you in your belief?

Herd mentality means little to me!

 

[Walkntune]

Would much rather be open to possibilities and imagination than stand on facts that are sure to change!

 

[Autodidact]

The biggest problem in this debate of "kinds" from evolutionists is that they want us to give the be all end all of what is in what kind. The simple answer is that we do not know what all is in what kind. Many people have tried to figure this out, and it is constantly being revised as new evidence emerges, and there are many different ideas within creation science regarding this topic. I really don't know why evolutionists are harping on this issue. If anything it shows that while we uphold the tenets of the Bible, we also look at the world itself and revise our models and have different competing models that change over time with the introduction of new facts. This system is largely parallel to the 'peer review section of the 'scientific' literature'.

I don't know what they heck you mean by "evolutionist." That is a very weird word. There is no philosophy or worldview called "evolutionism." What we have is a scientific theory in the field of Biology, and people who accept science. So by "evolutionist" in this context I assume you mean proponents of science.

Why do we ask for a definition of "kind?" Definitions are important in science. We can't evaluate a claim without knowing what it means. If you can't define the term, basically, you can't use it.

We also believe that the reason you "can't" define it is that it is a nonesense word, a conversation stopper. YECs want it to mean one thing in one context, and another thing in another.

In science, it's not enough to make an assertion. You have to be able to back it up with evidence. You can't even figure out what that evidence might be, unless you first figure out what it is you're asserting. Which means defining your terms.

In essence, you're saying:
The most important, well-supported, accepted theory in biology is completely wrong because of bleepmorp.
What's bleepmorp?
We have no idea.
Well, I think you have a problem there. Get back to us when you figure out what bleepmorp is, so we can respond to your criticism.

Revising your models is good. Eventually you will revise your model to accept ToE.

No, it's nothing like peer review.

Let's say this. The whole "kind" thing is your guy's thing. It's "creation science." Apparently, your "creation scientists" don't even know what it is. So how about you wait till they figure that out, before trying to raise it as a potential objection to one of the most important, foundational theories in the history of science.

In science it is okay to say "we don't know", and that is really where we are in having a complete picture of kinds.

O.K. Great. You don't know. If you ever figure it out, we'll talk about it. So for now, regarding ToE, the best you can say is that you don't know what your objection is, or why.

This also raises the question of why we don't know after many years of trying to figure this out. There are several answers to this, and it's my view that it is a combination of many things. First, and foremost, I see it as a product of the fact that within the natural world the only taxonomic rank of any importance is the species level. While two species may be in the same kind, nature doesn't care; it only cares if the two species can mix inherited traits. Everything in taxonomy beyond the species level is completely arbitrary and only serves us by organizing information (I know if you accept evolution taxonomy can be used to help systematize evolutionary trees in cladistics, but that works off of the premise that evolution is true, which is the focal point of this whole debate. So to accept this idea as a creationist doesn't make any sense, and it shouldn't be used as a given in this controversy). So there really is no field test that we could do to determine if two different species were in the same kind or not. I think that is perhaps the biggest road block to systematizing kinds.

O.K. Fine. It's a useless, undefined, nebulous non-concept. Let's discard it and work with what we do know.

While this point is not scientific, I do think that it deserves attention simply because religion is involved in this controversy. And that is the theological understanding in Christianity and Judaism that God wants people to have real faith in Him; and real choice to believe in Him or not. This is not achieved by making every piece of evidence harmonious with creation - for how could we possibly have a real choice or real biblical faith if we must forgo a plethora of evidence to deny His existence? This does not equate to God covering up His works, or the Devil tampering with evidence. Rather, it is a statement about the very nature of the universe itself. Which is fundamentally, the intrinsic properties of the cosmos make it ambiguous to the existence of God. Therefore, we must understand, and respect, that there are good arguments on both sides, and it all boils down to personal opinions and beliefs.

NO. You have faith. That's nice. Apparently it makes you unable to accept science. That's not nice, for you. There is no reason on earth why your refusal to accept science should affect science, or should be considered a valid objection to a scientific theory.

Remember, this thread is not about your religious faith. It's about evidence. If you ever find any, please come back and share it with us.

If you want to talk about how your religious faith causes you to reject science, I suggest you start a thread. You have my sympathy.

 

[johnhanks]

Herd mentality means little to me!

Here you manage, in six little words, to denigrate the whole concept of rational argument and persuasion. 'Herd mentality' is the antithesis of rationality. I asked

Do you have any evidence that might persuade others to join you in your belief?

The answer appears to be no.

 

[Walkntune]

Here you manage, in six little words, to denigrate the whole concept of rational argument and persuasion. 'Herd mentality' is the antithesis of rationality. I asked
The answer appears to be no.

You are evidence to me! I have stated my energy concept as belief and the fact I used those choice words you mention. You try to drive an argument in the ground by trying to demand evidence to falsify claim to be on top and gain energy from the argument. This is what drives ego to be correct. To me the very debate itself and energy exchanged is the concept and particular area I am interested in! To gain ones energy or approval from others is a form of energy transference that is part of survival.To become smart, talented, funny, etc.. is a form of survival to gain energy. All of evolution is energy gain or loss and deterministic.
If you want to address this further we need to start a new thread because the energy from this discussion will get under the skin of Autodidact and she will become frustrated. She will have the choice of suppressing this energy or having to feel it in order to let it go. Either way it causes actions.No the energy can't be measured but we can see cause and effect.Energy just keeps moving!
Sorry Autodidact and I am trying to veer it out of your thread!

 

[Autodidact]

You are evidence to me! I have stated my energy concept as belief and the fact I used those choice words you mention. You try to drive an argument in the ground by trying to demand evidence to falsify claim to be on top and gain energy from the argument. This is what drives ego to be correct. To me the very debate itself and energy exchanged is the concept and particular area I am interested in! To gain ones energy or approval from others is a form of energy transference that is part of survival.To become smart, talented, funny, etc.. is a form of survival to gain energy. All of evolution is energy gain or loss and deterministic.
If you want to address this further we need to start a new thread because the energy from this discussion will get under the skin of Autodidact and she will become frustrated. She will have the choice of suppressing this energy or having to feel it in order to let it go. Either way it causes actions.No the energy can't be measured but we can see cause and effect.Energy just keeps moving!
Sorry Autodidact and I am trying to veer it out of your thread!

It's not hard, just start a thread.

 

[Autodidact]

btw, those "creation scientists" who have been beavering away on this "science," here's what they've come up with so far. For starters, they decided to invent another nonsense word, or set of words for this. They use the word "min," and then the specific type of "min" for a "kind" is a "baramin." So that's they word they're trying to define.

From these Biblical considerations, we find that
although mîn has been a mainstay of creation biology
for many years, there is very little linguistic support
for viewing it as a scientific term in the modern
sense. For this reason, our refined baramin concept
specifically avoids equating the baramin with any
Biblical category.

from here.*
Got that, creationists? They've been just slaving away on this kind thing, and so far what they've figured out is that is has nothing to do with "kinds." So why they're worrying about it I can't imagine.

But how about that definition we've all been waiting for with such eager anticipation? Wait for it, it's a doozy. And here it is!
we define a baramin
as the actualization of a potentiality region at any
point or period in history (including but not limited
to all of history). The baramin can include all
organisms created within a potentiality region (Wise’s
archaebaramin), all of their descendents, or all of the
extant organisms from a potentiality region. Critical
to the definition of the baramin is that it encompasses
all of the members of a potentiality region alive at any
given time.


And I hope that clears that up once and for all!

*this is basically the product of the finest "creation science" minds at work, the top guys, the definitive word on the subject.

Now, YECs, can you give us the remotest clue whatheheck these brilliant minds are jibbering about? Thanks.

 

[Wotan]

After reading that (whatever it is) I wonder what is NOT in a baramin?

Oh wait, I see - dead things. Now THAT really clears up everything doesn't it!

 

[Walkntune]

It's not hard, just start a thread.

I was hoping it would just evolve with no deterministic effort! Kidding!

 

[Wotan]

I was hoping it would just evolve with no deterministic effort! Kidding!

The natural selection that operates on these threads will not allow it. Mods are VERY deterministic - unlike true natural selection. It requires only one thing. Live long and reproduce often. Nothing else matters.

 

[McBell]

Would much rather be open to possibilities and imagination than stand on facts that are sure to change!

Ah, so you do not subscribe to any of the presupposed religions, right?

 

[johnhanks]

You are evidence to me! I have stated my energy concept as belief and the fact I used those choice words you mention.

No disrespect, but is English, in fact, your first language?

You try to drive an argument in the ground by trying to demand evidence to falsify claim to be on top and gain energy from the argument.

No, I pursue an argument to its logical conclusion to establish its truth or falseness. If it has no evidence in its favour, I have to conclude it is false.

This is what drives ego to be correct. To me the very debate itself and energy exchanged is the concept and particular area I am interested in! To gain ones energy or approval from others is a form of energy transference that is part of survival.To become smart, talented, funny, etc.. is a form of survival to gain energy. All of evolution is energy gain or loss and deterministic.

O-K. Get back to me when you've become smart, talented or funny, and we'll go on from here.

 

[Walkntune]

Ah, so you do not subscribe to any of the presupposed religions, right?

I walk out my own salvation! God holds all things together. God is the creative energy!
With God a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day!
Einstein didn't discover relativity!It has always been in scripture!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I walk out my own salvation! God holds all things together. God is the creative energy!
With God a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day!
Einstein didn't discover relativity!It has always been in scripture!

Funny thing that that part of the Bible which "described relativity" was only found (or, more, accurately, interpreted) after Einstein formulated his theory of general relativity. It occurs to me that had it been there from the start, somebody would of noticed it in the near 2000-year gap between them, rather than having to wait for someone else to formulate the theory before going back and saying "oh look, this passage in the Bible sorta kinda maybe looks like it could be kinda almost similar to what Einstein is describing - therefore the Bible predicted it!"

 

[Tiapan]

Well actually I am working toward a point to where I believe their is a creative force of energy that permeates all through existence and sustains all and holds all together.I don't believe materialism exists except as vibrating strings of energy.I feel to understand creation at its roots and work out the details is a much better way then trimming branches to understand how and why things work.
Medical science could learn how energies can become resistant to each other and cause dieseases instead of always treating symptoms.
Mental health would understand how emotions are energy trapped in the body and that its not a chemical imbalance that is the cause but the undealt with emotions.Chemical imbalances result from the brain becoming irrational trying to line reality up to how one feels because they choose to deny the trapped emotions.
The same all the way down to evolution. Evolution is caused by forces acting on organisms and mutations are a result, not a cause.
If scientists treated energy as a cause instead of a result they would come and understand the cosmic order that Einstein and Tesla have come to face with and would take off from where they left off instead of trading reality for math formulas.

Do any of you religious types understand physics beyond 6th grade, it is so hard to shine the light on such in depth ignorance. eg define "energy" "work" "power" "impulse" watch the interrelation and observe the magnitude of difference between your assumptions and the reality of the real universe.

Ask your 7th grade kid his responses. Are they different or are you one of those that demands his teachers convey only those beliefs you agree with?

their is a creative force of energy that permeates all through existence...

Do you understand the concept of entropy, and the contradiction it offers to the concept of an original, organized complex intelligent consciousness? Physics may approach zen buddhism but is totally antagonistic to an Abrahamic universe.

Cheers

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Einstein didn't discover relativity!It has always been in scripture!

Bad move, Walkntune.
This sounds just like the pitiful claims that we see in threads trying to credit the Q'uran with all types of scientific knowledge.

Let science be science, and religion be religion. When religion tries to claim credit for scientific knowledge, it just gets ugly.

 

[Autodidact]

Now, Danmac, you have an opportunity to demonstrate what effect your religious belief has had on your character. You can admit you were wrong, demonstrating humility, grace, honesty and courage. You can try to deny your earlier mistake, despite the entire world being able to read it on the internet, or you can ignore the incident, possibly fleeing the thread to do so.

 

[Autodidact]

Alright, to recap. Everyone in this thread accepts the central tenet of the ToE, which is that new species emerge from existing ones by descent with modification plus natural selection. Our only disagreement is about whether this accounts for all species, and all organisms on the planet, or whether there are something called "kinds," and this process only happens within the "kinds," whatever they may be. In other words, is all of life a single tree, or is it an orchard of separate trees? We are only looking at the outermost twigs. If we could fill in what we can't see, would it end up tracing back to a single trunk, or many smaller trunks?

The first thing to ask is what we should expect to see with each model, that is, what does it predict?

 

[Autodidact]

The biggest problem in this debate of "kinds" from evolutionists is that they want us to give the be all end all of what is in what kind. The simple answer is that we do not know what all is in what kind. Many people have tried to figure this out, and it is constantly being revised as new evidence emerges, and there are many different ideas within creation science regarding this topic. I really don't know why evolutionists are harping on this issue. If anything it shows that while we uphold the tenets of the Bible, we also look at the world itself and revise our models and have different competing models that change over time with the introduction of new facts. This system is largely parallel to the 'peer review section of the 'scientific' literature'.

In science it is okay to say "we don't know", and that is really where we are in having a complete picture of kinds. This also raises the question of why we don't know after many years of trying to figure this out. There are several answers to this, and it's my view that it is a combination of many things. First, and foremost, I see it as a product of the fact that within the natural world the only taxonomic rank of any importance is the species level. While two species may be in the same kind, nature doesn't care; it only cares if the two species can mix inherited traits. Everything in taxonomy beyond the species level is completely arbitrary and only serves us by organizing information (I know if you accept evolution taxonomy can be used to help systematize evolutionary trees in cladistics, but that works off of the premise that evolution is true, which is the focal point of this whole debate. So to accept this idea as a creationist doesn't make any sense, and it shouldn't be used as a given in this controversy). So there really is no field test that we could do to determine if two different species were in the same kind or not. I think that is perhaps the biggest road block to systematizing kinds.

While this point is not scientific, I do think that it deserves attention simply because religion is involved in this controversy. And that is the theological understanding in Christianity and Judaism that God wants people to have real faith in Him; and real choice to believe in Him or not. This is not achieved by making every piece of evidence harmonious with creation - for how could we possibly have a real choice or real biblical faith if we must forgo a plethora of evidence to deny His existence? This does not equate to God covering up His works, or the Devil tampering with evidence. Rather, it is a statement about the very nature of the universe itself. Which is fundamentally, the intrinsic properties of the cosmos make it ambiguous to the existence of God. Therefore, we must understand, and respect, that there are good arguments on both sides, and it all boils down to personal opinions and beliefs.

As I said, the fact that you can't define your most basic, core objection is only part of the problem.

Now, here's your problem. Well, problems:

1. You have absolutely no idea what kind is.
2. You cannot tell whether two given organisms are the same or a different kind.
3. You have not the remotest idea how many kinds there are.
4. You have not a shred of evidence for this assertion.
5. You have no proposed mechanism to explain why this should be so.

Given all that, until you come up with some of this, I think we can discard and ignore your argument. And since that is the only objection you currently have to ToE, and we can discount it until you can formulate it, we can continue to regard ToE as both accepted an unassailed, at least in this thread.

 

[McBell]

I walk out my own salvation! God holds all things together. God is the creative energy!
With God a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day!
Einstein didn't discover relativity!It has always been in scripture!

um, is that a yes?

Seeing as it does not appear to me that you answered the question...