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

[Alceste]

Alas, the evidence has effectively repelled him. Unfortunately, I don't believe I extracted his promise to stick around and engage with the evidence before I began. Oddly, I've wasted hours of my life in this exact exercise with YECs.

True, but I bet you could save a lot of time and effort by writing one killer "lizard kind" post and copying it into every YEC thread.

If the "kind" in question is something other than a lizard, you could always do a find and replace, google the number of species and re-do the math.

 

[Autodidact]

True, but I bet you could save a lot of time and effort by writing one killer "lizard kind" post and copying it into every YEC thread.

If the "kind" in question is something other than a lizard, you could always do a find and replace, google the number of species and re-do the math.

Thanks.

Well, some YECs take the opposite tack, espoused by someone else earlier in this thread, that new species never evolve. This is eselam's position. It doesn't seem to bother them at all that YECs can't even agree on this most fundamental point, and without the scientific method they have no way to resolve it.

When people posted actual instances of new species actually evolving, he said he didn't need to read it or look at the evidence, the scientists must be lying, because he already knew this was impossible. I swear to God. Comical, and sad.

Once you pin them down to any degree on "kind" they're sunk. Either way it doesn't work. That's because ToE happens to be correct.

 

[Alceste]

But eselam is a Muslim, right? I think there's no "flood" or anything in Islam, and no requirement the earth be only a few thousand years old. You'd need a different stock post for the "everything that is, has been since the beginning" POV. I haven't been paying attention to what that might be.

I'm pretty sure the lizard dilemma would work pretty uniformly for all YECs. At least it might shut them up while they try to find something on AiG that addresses that particular problem.

 

[fantome profane]

But eselam is a Muslim, right? I think there's no "flood" or anything in Islam, and no requirement the earth be only a few thousand years old.

Are you sure about that?

I didn’t think Islam and Christianity differed in any significant way on those points.

 

[Gunfingers]

If this is true, then they have a flood myth but it doesn't involve 2 of every creature.

 

[fantome profane]

If this is true, then they have a flood myth but it doesn't involve 2 of every creature.

I think it does.

[FONT=&quot]Sura 11:40 [/FONT]When our judgment came, and the atmosphere boiled over, we said, "Carry on it a pair of each kind, together with your family, except those who are condemned. Carry with you those who have believed," and only a few have believed with him.

 

[Autodidact]

But eselam is a Muslim, right? I think there's no "flood" or anything in Islam, and no requirement the earth be only a few thousand years old. You'd need a different stock post for the "everything that is, has been since the beginning" POV. I haven't been paying attention to what that might be.

I'm pretty sure the lizard dilemma would work pretty uniformly for all YECs. At least it might shut them up while they try to find something on AiG that addresses that particular problem.

Most Christian YECs at least try to adjust their views when they learn that we have actually observed new species to evolve. In being willing to call every Biologist in the world a liar, and figuratively close his eyes to any evidence contrary to his preconceived view, eselam helped me realize that Muslim YECs are much worse than Christian. This is particularly tragic because the first person to conceptualize a primitive version of both the scientific method and evolution was a medieval Muslim. Islam has degenerated from a religion that respects science as a way to revere creation to a fundamentalist, anti-science dogma.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Alas, the evidence has effectively repelled him. . . . Oddly, I've wasted hours of my life in this exact exercise with YECs.

I admire your tenacity but question your judgment.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Well don't stop now, let's round this baby up, let's shoot for 100 pages! I'm like Monk...

 

[ragordon168]

Most Christian YECs at least try to adjust their views when they learn that we have actually observed new species to evolve. In being willing to call every Biologist in the world a liar, and figuratively close his eyes to any evidence contrary to his preconceived view, eselam helped me realize that Muslim YECs are much worse than Christian. This is particularly tragic because the first person to conceptualize a primitive version of both the scientific method and evolution was a medieval Muslim. Islam has degenerated from a religion that respects science as a way to revere creation to a fundamentalist, anti-science dogma.

so about where christianity was 500 hundred years ago (im sure thats the cultural time gap according to some source, but nothing to back that up)

given enough time - and the removal of dogmatic preachers - and islamic society could return to a scientific society.

 

[ragordon168]

Alas, the evidence has effectively repelled him. Unfortunately, I don't believe I extracted his promise to stick around and engage with the evidence before I began. Oddly, I've wasted hours of my life in this exact exercise with YECs.

"all it takes for ignorance to prosper is a wise man doing nothing"

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Kind means same kind of animal and science needs to find out where it belongs. I do have an idea about what happened, it says in the Bible that God spoke the world into existence in 6 ordinary days and on the 7th he rested.

@Man of Faith:
I would really still like to get an answer

 

[McBell]

@Man of Faith:
I would really still like to get an answer

Patience Mr. Spoon.
He is still pawing through his Bible looking for it.

 

[themadhair]

patience mr. Spoon.
He is still pawing through answersingenesis looking for it.

fify.

 

[Man of Faith]

I've been reading and listening to some interesting stuff. Did ya'll know that commmon descent is a dying theory? Check out this paper by Stuart Newman a professor of cell biology.

“Incremental changes in an existing biological structure the alterations in beak shape of the finches that so impressed Charles Darwin during his voyage to the Galapagos Islands, for instance – can indeed be attributed to natural selection. Even most creationists do not deny this. But when it comes to the innovation of entirely new structures (‘‘morphological novelties’’) such as segmentally organized bodies (seen in earthworms, insects, and vertebrates such as humans, but not jellyfish or molluscs), or the hands and feet of tetrapods (vertebrates with four limbs), Darwin’s mechanism comes up short. This is a reality that is increasingly acknowledged by biologists, particularly those working in the field of evolutionary developmental biology, or ‘‘EvoDevo.’’ ”

The scientific mainstream should rightly be prevailing in the evolution debate, since the living world is manifestly a product of evolution. But it and its liberal advocates are so wedded to a neo-Darwinism that has effectively become the house philosophy of the market economy that they are barely holding on in their attempts to prevent naturalistic accounts of the history of life from being expunged from school curricula. Unless the discourse around evolution is opened up to scientific perspectives beyond Darwinism, the education of generations to come is at risk of being sacrificed for the benefit of a dying theory.”

Stuart Newman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.nymc.edu/sanewman/PDFs/CNS_Evolution_08.pdf

 

[Alceste]

MF, why did you decide to skip the opening paragraph of this paper?

The fact that organic evolution occurred, and continues to occur, is as solid as any conclusion science has yet produced. To take issue with this, considering the interconnected biological, chemical, geological, and physical facts that enter into our knowledge of evolution, is to take issue with much of modern science.

This is what we have all been telling you all along, and you have been disagreeing with it. Are you now saying you agree with Newman's statement above? Or do you only agree with Mr. Newman when he says something that you can (wrongly and out of context) interpret to be supportive of your ridiculous religious beliefs?

Edit: I note that even in the part you chose to quote, he states quite clearly that SCIENTIFIC perspectives beyond "Darwinism" should b debated. I'm afraid your biblical hocus pocus does not come close to qualifying.

 

[Man of Faith]

MF, why did you decide to skip the opening paragraph of this paper:



This is what we have all been telling you all along, and you have been disagreeing with it. Are you now saying you agree with Newman's statement above? Or do you only agree with Mr. Newman when he says something that you can (wrongly and out of context) interpret to be supportive of your ridiculous beliefs?

I didn't skip it, I just cut and pasted the pertinant things that I wanted to show, the things that look shiney and new to me and make the creationists case. I understand that the person still believes that natural processes created everything we see, however Darwin's common descent theory is in trouble according to him.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"The scientific mainstream should rightly be prevailing in the evolution debate, since the living world is manifestly a product of evolution. "

If your point is that all the details of ToE are unclear and subject to various often conflicting theories - gee, Dick Tracy who clued you?

FLASH! This just in. We do NOT know all there is to be known about how evolution works. But that it works, has worked and will continue to work - that is not in dispute.

At least not among those with more than a 8th grade education and who can understand the scientific definition of "species."

 

[Tristesse]

I've been reading and listening to some interesting stuff. Did ya'll know that commmon descent is a dying theory? Check out this paper by Stuart Newman a professor of cell biology.

“Incremental changes in an existing biological structure the alterations in beak shape of the finches that so impressed Charles Darwin during his voyage to the Galapagos Islands, for instance – can indeed be attributed to natural selection. Even most creationists do not deny this. But when it comes to the innovation of entirely new structures (‘‘morphological novelties’’) such as segmentally organized bodies (seen in earthworms, insects, and vertebrates such as humans, but not jellyfish or molluscs), or the hands and feet of tetrapods (vertebrates with four limbs), Darwin’s mechanism comes up short. This is a reality that is increasingly acknowledged by biologists, particularly those working in the field of evolutionary developmental biology, or ‘‘EvoDevo.’’ ”

The scientific mainstream should rightly be prevailing in the evolution debate, since the living world is manifestly a product of evolution. But it and its liberal advocates are so wedded to a neo-Darwinism that has effectively become the house philosophy of the market economy that they are barely holding on in their attempts to prevent naturalistic accounts of the history of life from being expunged from school curricula. Unless the discourse around evolution is opened up to scientific perspectives beyond Darwinism, the education of generations to come is at risk of being sacrificed for the benefit of a dying theory.”

Stuart Newman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.nymc.edu/sanewman/PDFs/CNS_Evolution_08.pdf

It's not a "dying theory" it's a theory that is being revised. Science doesn't stop! As our understanding grows, so does the process that we use. For some reason creationists have the hardest time understanding this.

 

[Man of Faith]

"The scientific mainstream should rightly be prevailing in the evolution debate, since the living world is manifestly a product of evolution. "

If your point is that all the details of ToE are unclear and subject to various often conflicting theories - gee, Dick Tracy who clued you?

FLASH! This just in. We do NOT know all there is to be known about how evolution works. But that it works, has worked and will continue to work - that is not in dispute.

At least not among those with more than a 8th grade education and who can understand the scientific definition of "species."

Point noted.