The ToE and common ancestry of all life forms did not come from looking at the evidence

[ragordon168]

I think its more that every single animal; dog, cat, monkey, lizard, etc is an uninque evolutionary block.

dogs will always be dogs, lizards will always be lizards and birds will always be birds. the change from one type to another (i.e lizard to bird) doesn't happen.

 

[Man of Faith]

I think its more that every single animal; dog, cat, monkey, lizard, etc is an uninque evolutionary block.

dogs will always be dogs, lizards will always be lizards and birds will always be birds. the change from one type to another (i.e lizard to bird) doesn't happen.

+1, that's my faith. God created the original kinds of animals full and whole, then they evolved from there. The Bible says that he created water animals and land animals on seperate days and it describes a day as 24 hours, with one morning and one evening. Non-coincidently that is what we see in nature, animals reproducing after their own kind. We don't observe what common ancestry describes.

 

[Man of Faith]

Lizards aren't a family.

O.K., let's go back. You agree that new species arise by the process described by ToE, right?

You agree that as that same process continues, we will then get new genii, families, and so forth, also by the process described by ToE, right?

So what is it that you disagree with?

I agree that lizards produce lizards and if you want to say they are of a different species, I am okay with that also, but they are still lizards. The same process continues but we never get anything but lizards from lizards and dog kinds from dog kinds, etc...

 

[Autodidact]

Well I just don't understand you. Your entire difference from ToE is that you think that animals only vary within something called a "kind," but you have absolutely no idea what on earth a kind is?

What you're saying is, that you disagree with modern biology because it differs from something you don't know and can't explain.

 

[Autodidact]

I agree that lizards produce lizards and if you want to say they are of a different species, I am okay with that also, but they are still lizards. The same process continues but we never get anything but lizards from lizards and dog kinds from dog kinds, etc...

I've already told you, MoF, that I'm really losing my patience with repeating myself. It has nothing to do with what I want. It's a scientific term. This thread is about science. Under the scientific definition of the word "species," new species arise by the process described in ToE, right? Do you agree or disagree?

 

[Alceste]

I agree that lizards produce lizards and if you want to say they are of a different species, I am okay with that also, but they are still lizards. The same process continues but we never get anything but lizards from lizards and dog kinds from dog kinds, etc...

It's not "what we want to say", MF, it's a FACT. A species is a group of organisms that can breed within the group and produce viable offspring, BUT CANNOT breed with other groups (and produce viable offspring). That's the definition of the word "species", as we've discussed. It is A FACT that there are 5000 different KNOWN species within the Lacertilia suborder. That's 5000 different "kinds" of lizard.

For your ridiculous "alternative" speculation to be true - Noah taking a boy "lizard" and a girl "lizard" on his ridiculously implausible zoo-boat - we MUST see a brand new group of lizards that can not breed with their parent's generation born EVERY YEAR.

Is that what we see?

 

[Amill]

+1, that's my faith. God created the original kinds of animals full and whole, then they evolved from there. The Bible says that he created water animals and land animals on seperate days and it describes a day as 24 hours, with one morning and one evening. Non-coincidently that is what we see in nature, animals reproducing after their own kind. We don't observe what common ancestry describes.

If you think that 2 basal cats can lead to a large amount of different cat species, then why can't you picture common ancestry going further back in time? Is it really that hard to picture foxes sharing a common ancestor with wolves and dogs? I don't think you even give it a consideration or try to take the time to understand it.

You find it impossible that this WOLF

could be related to this FOX? Dholes also look similar

Did all the many kinds of jackals, wolves, cyotes, african wild dogs, dingos, and other dogs originate from 2 original dogs just 6 thousand years ago? Can foxes, with their similarities to dogs, share the same ancestors? Did some of these lines have their own evolutionary lines?

It's not quite as simple as cats are cats, dogs are dogs you know. I don't think creationists realize how diverse life has been and is now.

 

[ragordon168]

...animals reproducing after their own kind. We don't observe what common ancestry describes.

animals breed within their own family groups because they are genetically programmed to. straight men are programmed to like t**s and a**. and its the same for animals, they are programmed to be attracted by their own species.


common ancestry deals with the gradual change in a entire species. not just dogs mating with cats to produce weird hybrids.

 

[Gunfingers]

What about organisms that appear to be of a "kind", but are, in fact, biologically separate? What "kind" are whales? What about moles? How can these three rodents look so similar and yet be genetically unrelated? Is there one rodent "kind" that, in the last few thousand years managed to produce everything from rats to squirrels to beavers to the massive Capybaras? Perhaps there were all these "kinds" of what we now know as rodents on the ark?

 

[Man of Faith]

I've already told you, MoF, that I'm really losing my patience with repeating myself. It has nothing to do with what I want. It's a scientific term. This thread is about science. Under the scientific definition of the word "species," new species arise by the process described in ToE, right? Do you agree or disagree?

Maybe you should sit back and relax some, take a breather, it's not worth getting all that worked up. You've made your case, but you need to realize that everybody isn't going to believe the same things in this world.

 

[Man of Faith]

What about organisms that appear to be of a "kind", but are, in fact, biologically separate? What "kind" are whales? What about moles? How can these three rodents look so similar and yet be genetically unrelated? Is there one rodent "kind" that, in the last few thousand years managed to produce everything from rats to squirrels to beavers to the massive Capybaras? Perhaps there were all these "kinds" of what we now know as rodents on the ark?

I'll leave that to the scientists to figure out.

 

[MSizer]

I'll leave that to the scientists to figure out.

They already have.

 

[Alceste]

Maybe you should sit back and relax some, take a breather, it's not worth getting all that worked up. You've made your case, but you need to realize that everybody isn't going to believe the same things in this world.

If your cult would stop trying to impose its "belief" into our children's science classes in place of the truth (which the rest of us "believe"), we would not be so worked up. The situation being it is, it's definitely worth getting worked up over. People who "believe" your fairy tale are making good progress in destroying biology education, putting your future generations at a huge disadvantage in several fields of scientific research.

You're free to believe whatever you like, but you start ******* people off when you try to screw with public education.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Maybe you should sit back and relax some, take a breather, it's not worth getting all that worked up. You've made your case, but you need to realize that everybody isn't going to believe the same things in this world.

You have a right to your own beliefs. You have no right to your own facts. Species is a well defined scientific term. Unlike your biblical "kinds" nonsense it is an objective definition based on observable verifiable fact.

Your claiming otherwise is not simply wrong. It is dishonest.

 

[Man of Faith]

If your cult would stop trying to impose its "belief" into our children's science classes in place of the truth (which the rest of us "believe"), we would not be so worked up. The situation being it is, it's definitely worth getting worked up over. People who "believe" your fairy tale are making good progress in destroying biology education, putting your future generations at a huge disadvantage in several fields of scientific research.

You're free to believe whatever you like, but you start ******* people off when you try to screw with public education.

What some schools have decided to do is be open and honest about the problems with the ToE and evolution from common ancestry and teach them to students.

 

[Man of Faith]

You have a right to your own beliefs. You have no right to your own facts. Species is a well defined scientific term. Unlike your biblical "kinds" nonsense it is an objective definition based on observable verifiable fact.

Your claiming otherwise is not simply wrong. It is dishonest.

What I said was I agree that you can define species anyway you want to, I have no problem with it. I'll stick to my kinds because that is what I observe in nature.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

What I said was I agree that you can define species anyway you want to, I have no problem with it. I'll stick to my kinds because that is what I observe in nature.

Great! Define "kind."

 

[OmarKhayyam]

What some schools have decided to do is be open and honest about the problems with the ToE and evolution from common ancestry and teach them to students.

No, that is not what LA e.g. is doing. It is saying as fact that ToE has little evidence supporting it and that which does is contradictory. And further that the Genesis account is the more "moral" and "uplifting" idea. Those words have no place in a science class. They have no objective definition and as such are just opinion dressed in somebody's theology.

 

[MSizer]

What some schools have decided to do is be open and honest about the problems with the ToE and evolution from common ancestry and teach them to students.

How gullible do you think we are? That's a load of BS. There's a reason I'm not allowed to perform brain surgery, and it's because I don't have the expertise. I can disagree with my doctor all I want about his perscription, but it doesn't mean I am qualified to prescribe something esle on my own. Evangelicals have no business trying to force their beliefs in the science corriculum. If you want to do that, earn the credentials and then take up a municipal position which affords you the authority.

 

[rojse]

Oh, and I'd better come clean - the murder analogy isn't really mine, i'd read it before.

Who cares? A good idea is still a good idea even if it were not originally yours.

And is not imitation the sincerest form of flattery?