Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[Deeje]

Whatever.

"Whatever"? That's it? You are not interested in examining what you believe to see if it is even valid...but are just happy to accept whatever they tell you with a wave of the hand....?

OK. All the best with that. Go back to sleep then.

 

[Deeje]

So you explain the existence of different organisms with the existence of one Creator of these organisms. Then the next question is how do you explain the existence of this Creator? Was it designed and created? Did it evolve from something? Does it exist by chance? None of the above?

Crumbs that is getting old....

 

[Mock Turtle]

"Whatever"? That's it? You are not interested in examining what you believe to see if it is even valid...but are just happy to accept whatever they tell you with a wave of the hand....?

OK. All the best with that. Go back to sleep then.

I know when I'm wasting my time, but you, it seems, don't.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Just for the record.....

These are basic "kinds" as referred to in the Bible...

Bears

Cats

Birds

Dogs

Horses

Insects

Fish

There are lots more....

Its really not a difficult concept, surely....? There are many varieties within a "kind" but as long as they recognize a mate and reproduce themselves, that ensures that their "kind" will remain in existence regardless of any adaptive change triggered by environmental factors or altered food sources.

So how are these "kinds" differentiated? For example, how can you tell that cats, bears and dogs a three distinct "kinds" rather than three variations within the same "kind"? What test can you do to demonstrate their specific taxonomic rank?

 

[Mock Turtle]

So how are these "kinds" differentiated? For example, how can you tell that cats, bears and dogs a three distinct "kinds" rather than three variations within the same "kind"? What test can you do to demonstrate their specific taxonomic rank?

Especially those animals that look similar but apparently are of a different species. How does she explain that?

 

[ArtieE]

Just for the record.....

These are basic "kinds" as referred to in the Bible...

Bears

Cats

Birds

Dogs

Horses

Insects

Fish

There are lots more....

Its really not a difficult concept, surely....? There are many varieties within a "kind" but as long as they recognize a mate and reproduce themselves, that ensures that their "kind" will remain in existence regardless of any adaptive change triggered by environmental factors or altered food sources.

For further information about "kinds" here's a very good and detailed source.
Biblical Kind
Here you can see that a "kind" can cover anything from the pictures above to near species level.

 

[ArtieE]

Crumbs that is getting old....

And still not answered... you have no hope of convincing atheists that your particular god exists if you can give no reason why he would... that goes for every god of course...

 

[ArtieE]

Especially those animals that look similar but apparently are of a different species. How does she explain that?

Here's an interesting article. Baffling Genetic Barrier Prevents Similar Animals from Interbreeding

 

[Mock Turtle]

Here's an interesting article. Baffling Genetic Barrier Prevents Similar Animals from Interbreeding

Yes, very interesting. It's a bit weird when species such as polar bears and grizzly bears seem to mix (occasionally), and lions and tigers, as well as no doubt many other species, but some so closely related don't - who'd have thought.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That's a straw man. The entire time of this explosion lasted maybe 40-50 million years, I'm well aware of the alleged duration. But the organisms themselves, which are from almost all the major phyla in existence today -- the species appear suddenly, with no accepted transitional precursors. (From the Ediacaran, either.)

I'm getting tired of constantly explaining this, apparently to people who don't want to look at the evidence.

Cooper & Fortey (1998) write:

"The beginning of the Cambrian period, some 545 million years ago, saw the sudden appearance in the fossil record of almost all the main types of animals (phyla) that still dominate the biota today. To be sure, there are fossils in older strata, but they are either very small (such as bacteria and algae), or their relationships to the living fauna are highly contentious, as is the case with the famous soft-bodied fossils from the late Precambrian Pound Quartzite, Ediacara, South Australia."

-- Alan Cooper and Richard Fortey, “Evolutionary explosions and the phylogenetic fuse,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 13 April, 1998: 151-156.

There is an enormous gulf between the state of the science and what many Darwinists believe it to be. Much of what is taught in school and pop-science TV shows is extremely simplistic, out of date and outright misleading- not necessarily on purpose, it's just that where Darwinism is accepted as truth, it's far easier to teach without covering the problems.

 

[Mock Turtle]

There is an enormous gulf between the state of the science and what many Darwinists believe it to be. Much of what is taught in school and pop-science TV shows is extremely simplistic, out of date and outright misleading- not necessarily on purpose, it's just that where Darwinism is accepted as truth, it's far easier to teach without covering the problems.

But better than most other explanations?

 

[metis]

This is the reason for the glaring lacks of missing links.

There is no such "glaring lack" in so many cases, and some of the cases where this is, gradually many are getting at least somewhat filled in as time goes on.

What we see everywhere we look and what is supported by experiment is that all change in life is sudden.

Absolutely false, and repeating it over and over again doesn't make it true.

Since anthropology was my profession for 30 years, we studied mostly human and primate evolution, and gradually we have a significantly better picture of what's happened over millions of years than we did when I started teaching it 50 years ago.

Gradual change is the stuff of Darwinism and not reality.

False again.

It's not evolution it's pollution.

Changes in the environment can put stress on various species, thus quite possibly leading to changes that could result into speciation.

To put it another way, you've bought into a false paradigm that is easily corrected if one does the research, and there are numerous books that can help you with that, or maybe even get a subscription to "Scientific American".

 

[ArtieE]

There is an enormous gulf between the state of the science and what many Darwinists believe it to be. Much of what is taught in school and pop-science TV shows is extremely simplistic, out of date and outright misleading- not necessarily on purpose, it's just that where Darwinism is accepted as truth, it's far easier to teach without covering the problems.

Then you should be happy to read this:
https://gizmodo.com/evolution-will-no-longer-be-taught-in-turkish-schools-1796371752

"Aside from a few areas of the United States and several Islamic fundamentalist countries, practically every nation on this planet teaches evolution—or is at least trying to. Darwinian natural selection is even taught in some of the most pious countries, such as Poland, Ireland, and Iran. Some jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom and Brazil, explicitly forbid the teaching of creationism. Back in 2007, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) adopted a resolution warning of the dangers of creationism in education, urging member states to “firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution and in general the presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion.”

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But better than most other explanations?

It was a better explanation in the Victorian age it came out of. It doesn't hold up so well in the 21st C

 

[Mock Turtle]

It was a better explanation in the Victorian age it came out of. It doesn't hold up so well in the 21st C

Well that's a surprise since we seem to have learnt a lot more since then - at least some have. And it still seems to be fundamentally sound according to most scientists involved in this field or that field.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You know that I agree with you, and I even think the fossil record is more complete than scientists want to accept! What is actually revealed, is evidence of Jehovah's generosity in creating such fascinating species! (I often wonder, in preparing the Earth for humans, how many species became extinct before God created us?) All organisms having the same building blocks (genes) found within DNA testifies, not to kinship between these living things, but rather to there being one Creator designing all of them, using one 'blueprint', as it were.


Even as far back in time as the Cambrian, we've discovered well-preserved organisms, even with finely detailed soft-tissued anatomy, clearly observed!

There are no gaps, it's all supposed.....of the millions of complete fossils found, only fully-formed species that are already well-adapted to their environment have been discovered.


Anything else, is conjecture.

Please, only the most ignorant use the term "fully formed". Why shoot down your own poor argument by using such a term. For example creationists have demanded to see a "half formed wing" and demand to know what one could be used for. Why do they ignore it when they are shown just such a "wing" and ignore the uses that it had? ***edit***

 

[Subduction Zone]

Crumbs that is getting old....

Yes, your arguments are getting old. I am glad that you recognize that. Sadly you still do not understand your special pleading fallacy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just for the record.....

These are basic "kinds" as referred to in the Bible...

Bears

Cats

Birds

Dogs

Horses

Insects

Fish

There are lots more....

Its really not a difficult concept, surely....? There are many varieties within a "kind" but as long as they recognize a mate and reproduce themselves, that ensures that their "kind" will remain in existence regardless of any adaptive change triggered by environmental factors or altered food sources.

Oh my! By your standards we are of the "fish" kind. After all it is easy to demonstrate with DNA that a marlin is more closely related to us than it is to a shark. And with your picture of "bird kind" you put us in the "mammal kind". Something that you might even agree to. Most women do acknowledge that they do have mammaries. And of course by any fair grouping at the very least you have us in "primate kind" If a panda bear is a bear than we are the same "kind" as other primates:

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Then you should be happy to read this:
https://gizmodo.com/evolution-will-no-longer-be-taught-in-turkish-schools-1796371752

"Aside from a few areas of the United States and several Islamic fundamentalist countries, practically every nation on this planet teaches evolution—or is at least trying to. Darwinian natural selection is even taught in some of the most pious countries, such as Poland, Ireland, and Iran. Some jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom and Brazil, explicitly forbid the teaching of creationism. Back in 2007, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) adopted a resolution warning of the dangers of creationism in education, urging member states to “firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution and in general the presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion.”

I'm fine with not making creationist arguments in schools - the problem is that they are practically a foundation of Darwinian teaching, as long as they are formed to explicitly support Darwinism.

e.g. the 'bad design' argument- the old laryngeal nerve in the Giraffe etc- are often held ups as 'proof' of unguided evolution. Teachers in many countries are forbidden to allow any counter argument- that's not in the best interest of science. In this case it means ignoring what science has learned about the elegant multi-functionality of that nerve since the argument was formulated- that's anti science

If Darwinism is scientifically sound, it should be able to compete on it's own merits, not by censorship and tilting the playing field to suit Victorian age science

 

[cladking]

"What we see everywhere we look and what is supported by experiment is that all change in life is sudden."

Absolutely false, and repeating it over and over again doesn't make it true.

Of course it's true. It is absolutely true. It is the one thing in ours lives that is invariable. From the time our mothers are suddenly and absolutely pregnant to the moment we suddenly and absolutely die all changes in all life that can be observed are sudden. There are no observable exceptions. Bread is either infected with mold or it is not. Being a "little" moldy just means we can cut off the bad part, not that it isn't infected.

We see these sudden changes in species as well.

Given enough time and a proper cause perhaps any animal might evolve but species rarely have time to evolve before a bottleneck wipes out those with similar behavior and causes a sudden change.