The fossil record shows there never was evolution.

[Jose Fly]

A better question would be why JoseFly tries to promote his belief system by lying.

Where have I lied?

 

[Stripe]

Link us to one please.

Why? So you can argue about something else in a bid to avoid a rational discussion?

Everything we have come to expect from you.

By all means, please list for us what traits they ignored. We eagerly await your response.

Evolutionists hate reading.

Everything we have come to expect from you.

You need this lesson.

We see the same trait in both modern and ancient horses. How is that not usefull evidence?

Darwinists hate reading.

I eagerly await your challenge.

:thumb:

I will when you put away the terms and ideas that assume the truth of Creationism.

:darwinsm:

You cannot insist on a double standard and expect to be taken seriously.

That's why I insist on a single, rational standard. However, Darwinists have everything to lose when the evidence is examined, which is why they will talk about anything and say anything to avoid it.

That is what Darwinism is: insisting that reality lines up with what you believe. Yet when issued a challenge, you avoid it to the point of denying it was even made.

That is actually exactly backwards. Darwin didn't go to the Galapagos thinking that evolution was a thing. Darwin looked at what he saw on the islands and asked why is it this way? He started to explorer what might account for the diversity.

:darwinsm:

Not only are you a mind reader, you're a time traveler.

:chuckle:

This is why you are mocked.

No person who actually does science for a living would ever call a scientific theory a fact.

Exactly. Which is why we see it so often from professional Darwinists — and amateur ones.

Gravity is not called a fact, it is a theory.

:dizzy:

Nope. Gravity is a fact. There are theories of gravity, but fact: Masses are attracted toward each other according to the inverse-square law. Fact.

They don't come any more fundamental than that, but the Darwinist will use anything to insulate his precious religion from scrutiny.

Evolution is not a fact, its a theory.

That's right. :thumb: Finally. You got one. :up:

You learned what a scientific theory is and is not. Now perhaps you can tell your brethren.

When you you call evolution a theory you are stating that evolution is real.

:rotfl:

Nope. People discuss theories all the time without thinking they are real.

You're just making this up as you go along, aren't you?

Why yes, yes it is. Thank you for admitting that it is a well substantiated explanation developed through scientific method. You have now earned the title of Darwinist by your own confession of evolution as a theory.

Darwinists want everything to be evolution. They'll even call people who utterly reject their religion an acolyte.

Welcome to Darwinism! We have cookies!

Yeah. You can keep them. They obviously melt your brain.

 

[Jose Fly]

A kind is all of the organisms that are descended from a common ancestor population.

Do you agree with this GenuineOriginal?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Large on the bottom? That is what I'd think- big things will settle down faster. Do you agree?

You are claiming a simplistic view of the flood as if everything was in a single jar that was shaken up and then set peacefully on a table for everything to settle.

The complex model of the flood is a series of tsunamis, rising water, and flash floods from the rain mixing together and burying things, with no peaceful time for those things to sort themselves out as they settle.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Stripe claims that creation scientists are real scientists. If this is true, why wouldn't they be willing to submit their work to the larger scientific world for review? Other scientists do, why not creation scientists?

Go watch the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and see if you are smart enough to figure out what Ben Stein is talking about.

Kind=Species. The two terms are synonymous.

Kind and species are no longer synonymous, though they may have been prior to Darwin's book.

 

[genuineoriginal]

They document it and publish it and then scientists start trying to figure out how it happened. What do you think happens?

They bury the evidence that does not fit their worldview.

 

[Stripe]

To account for everything, I leave open the possibility of cross-breeding between two different kinds, which does make classifying a kind a bit more difficult.

We've based our definition on the descriptions from the Bible:

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Which says that creatures are restricted to kinds. If you want to say two types can interbreed, you've implicitly defined them as the same kind.

 

[genuineoriginal]

If you insist that the change happen in one generation then you are most likely to end up with a genetic monster. As previously pointed out, genetic monsters are not part of evolution as they are unsuccessful off-spring meaning they do not reproduce. Take the horse. If an ancient horse were to suddenly give birth to a modern horse, the modern horse would be a genetic monster. It would not be able to mate with the ancient horse so the genes that make up that horse never enter the gene pool.

Yes, but nobody is talking about a significant change happening in one generation but you.

On the other hand, a series of gradual changes that result in the modern horse do not result in genetic monsters as the gradual change can still reproduce so its modified genes and alleles enter the gene pool and evolution of the species proceeds.

A series of gradual changes that result in a change in DNA sufficient to change one kind of animal into another kind, regardless of how many generations it takes, will result in offspring that are incapable of producing another generation, and will become an "evolutionary dead end".

Do you honestly think that the emergence of a new species/kind happens in one generation? Why do you think this?

Nobody is talking about a significant change happening in one generation but you.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Do you agree with this GenuineOriginal?

I see no real disagreement, if you add my caveat.

"A kind is all of the organisms that are descended from a common ancestor population." - Stripe
"with the exception of those organisms formed by cross-breeding kinds, which are not sustainable across multiple generations" - genuineoriginal

We've based our definition on the descriptions from the Bible:

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Which says that creatures are restricted to kinds. If you want to say two types can interbreed, you've implicitly defined them as the same kind.

I leave open the possibility of cross-breeding, since I do not believe a donkey and a horse are the same kind, but they produce a sterile mule.

 

[Stripe]

I leave open the possibility of cross-breeding, since I do not believe a donkey and a horse are the same kind, but they produce a sterile mule.

Can you think of an example of cross-breeding where it is not likely that an originally created kind could not have produced the two populations?

For example, with horses and donkeys, it is pretty easy to imagine them both coming from an originally created super-horse. It's easy to imagine that a "super bear" population produced grizzlies and polars. Similarly with lions and tigers coming from a super-cat population.

Can you think of two animals that can produce offspring, but would not likely have been spawned from the same population between creation and now?

 

[Jose Fly]

Only a change that large would prove evolution

Where did you get the idea that anything less than the evolution of an entire new family doesn't count as evolution?

any thing less is merely changes within a single kind, which fit the creationist model quite well.

Doesn't that depend on your definition of "kind"?

 

[Jose Fly]

"A kind is all of the organisms that are descended from a common ancestor population." - Stripe
"with the exception of those organisms formed by cross-breeding kinds, which are not sustainable across multiple generations" - genuineoriginal

And how do you establish what is and what isn't descended from a common ancestor population?

I leave open the possibility of cross-breeding, since I do not believe a donkey and a horse are the same kind, but they produce a sterile mule.

So there's a good example. How did you come to conclude that "donkey" and "horse" are different "kinds"?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Can you think of an example of cross-breeding where it is not likely that an originally created kind could not have produced the two populations?

For example, with horses and donkeys, it is pretty easy to imagine them both coming from an originally created super-horse. It's easy to imagine that a "super bear" population produced grizzlies and polars. Similarly with lions and tigers coming from a super-cat population.

Can you think of two animals that can produce offspring, but would not likely have been spawned from the same population between creation and now?

Imagining a "super-horse" that devolved into a donkey and a horse comes from the theory of evolution.

We are talking about kinds, not at a superficial appearance level, but at a genetic level.

The horse has 64 chromosomes, the donkey has 62, and the chromosones do not have a good match to each other.

I cannot imagine a common ancestor that could produce viable offspring with different numbers of mismatching chromosomes that would end up being modern horses and donkeys.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Where did you get the idea that anything less than the evolution of an entire new family doesn't count as evolution?

Where did you get the idea that anything less than the evolution of an entire new family counts?
A fly is a fly is a fly.
All flies are flies.
All flies are part of the fly kind.

If you prove that a fly can evolve into some new kind, which is not a fly, then you can prove evolution.
Anything less only proves that DNA allows for adaptation without true speciation.

 

[genuineoriginal]

And how do you establish what is and what isn't descended from a common ancestor population?

We now have a new way of identifying things like this, called DNA.
Prior to that, we had to use the unscientific method evolutionists use, which is claiming a common ancestor based on similar appearances.

So there's a good example. How did you come to conclude that "donkey" and "horse" are different "kinds"?

The mule is sterile, an "evolutionary dead end", because of the differences in the chromosomes, which shows that the horse and donkey came from different ancestors.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Cabinet.... I'm not usually in the habit of saying "Duh" to people... but your questions seem so dumb. It is as if you think intetpretations of evidence can come from a blank slate. For example.... a Biblical creationist and an atheist can work side-by-side in a lab. They both use the scientific method examining genetic sequences and mutation rates. However there beliefs about the past are totally opposite. But they still perform the same science.

Yes, trained scientists can do that. On the other hand, there are scientists that are not trying to understand where the evidence leads, they are trying to fit the evidence to a preconceived conclusion. Those that are trying to fit evidence to their point of view are extremely reluctant to expose their work to peer review.

Correct! We agree! A secular Journal will not publish evidence where the global flood in the Bible. But if you wish to see peer-reviewed articles in Christian journals on the topic they are available

Sorry, we don't agree. These were your words, not mine. I must have mucked up the quote feature. My reply to this is that a journal will publish works that support a global flood if it rises to the level of scholarly standards it requires for all submissions. The reason for journals is to expose your work to criticism and see what needs to be further investigated or better supported. A secular journal would be far more likely to publish an opposing point of view than a creationist journal.

Of course. Even evolutionists agree that natural selection / adaptation results from a loss of genetic info.
Yes...an excellent example of the Biblical model. A poodle is a mutant... a loss of genetic info. A breeder can always eliminate unwanted traits / pre-existing genetic info as has been done with poodles. (But poodles and wolves are the same kind of animal, aren't they?)

A breeder both eliminates and adds desirable traits. It would be interesting to see if you can define genetic information and what is lost to carve a poodle out of a wolf.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Yes.
The ones killed first in the flood will usually end up in the bottom layers, and the ones killed last will usually end up in the top layers.
:thumb:

So the human that died at 1:00pm would end up below the dinosaur that dies at 1:10pm? Seems grossly over simplified.

 

[genuineoriginal]

So the human that died at 1:00pm would end up below the dinosaur that dies at 1:10pm? Seems grossly over simplified.

Yes, your strawman is grossly oversimplified.
:thumb:

Now if you want to talk about the animals that died in the first tsunami being buried first and the animals that died in the second tsunami being buried on top of them, we may have something to discuss.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Why? So you can argue about something else in a bid to avoid a rational discussion?

Everything we have come to expect from you.

Evolutionists hate reading.

Everything we have come to expect from you.

You need this lesson.

Darwinists hate reading.

:thumb:

:darwinsm:

That's why I insist on a single, rational standard. However, Darwinists have everything to lose when the evidence is examined, which is why they will talk about anything and say anything to avoid it.

That is what Darwinism is: insisting that reality lines up with what you believe. Yet when issued a challenge, you avoid it to the point of denying it was even made.

:darwinsm:

Not only are you a mind reader, you're a time traveler.

:chuckle:

This is why you are mocked.

Exactly. Which is why we see it so often from professional Darwinists — and amateur ones.

:dizzy:

Nope. Gravity is a fact. There are theories of gravity, but fact: Masses are attracted toward each other according to the inverse-square law. Fact.

They don't come any more fundamental than that, but the Darwinist will use anything to insulate his precious religion from scrutiny.

That's right. :thumb: Finally. You got one. :up:

You learned what a scientific theory is and is not. Now perhaps you can tell your brethren.

:rotfl:

Nope. People discuss theories all the time without thinking they are real.

You're just making this up as you go along, aren't you?

Darwinists want everything to be evolution. They'll even call people who utterly reject their religion an acolyte.



Yeah. You can keep them. They obviously melt your brain.

Is this what you consider rational discussion? A series of ad hominem comments followed by deliberately evasive response and completely ignoring the universally accepted definition of "theory" and "scientific process" used be all legitimate scientists around the world.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Yes, but nobody is talking about a significant change happening in one generation but you.

No need to resort to deliberately misleading statements about what I have said. I was asking you about your position based on what you have said about sufficient change. Your definition is so vague that it is nearly useless.

A series of gradual changes that result in a change in DNA sufficient to change one kind of animal into another kind, regardless of how many generations it takes, will result in offspring that are incapable of producing another generation, and will become an "evolutionary dead end".

Does not seem to be true for the great apes including humans. The tree has branched considerably from the original "kind" into chimps and apes and orangutans and humans.

Nobody is talking about a significant change happening in one generation but you.

Sorry, your definition did not make this clear and refused to answer my question regarding incremental changes. No that you've cleared that up we can talk about why you think gradual changes could not result in a new species.