Evolution and Creationism both have equal value and scientific evidence to support them.

[Autodidact]

The limits are clearly within the original created kinds which is explained under the science of Baraminology.

What is a kind? Baraminoogy is not a science.

The observable limits are the same kind of creature.

What is a kind?

Like I have pointed out multiple times, birds have birds, they are the same kind of creature.

We know that, it's fundamental to the ToE. But until you learn what the ToE says, you don't realize that. [qutoe] Let's say that Darwin was right and I think he was that some of the same species of birds have different beak shapes and sizes due to weather patterens. Well so what? Can you get from that to every creature has a common ancestor? I can't.[/quote] Yes, would you like to join a thread to explain how and why? Or would you rather remain ignorant?

 

[Smoke]

I see, then someone needs to tell your leader that it isn't a valid word because I quote Dawkins. "Darwinism leads to a fascist state". So he knows what it is.

1) "Your leader"?
2) In the U.S., Darwinism is generally used as a pejorative. When Brits say Darwinism, all they mean is natural selection.
3) Dawkins didn't say that that. He said that a society that worked according to Darwinian laws -- that is, a society that operated by the principle of natural selection -- would be a fascist state.

 

[Smoke]

The limits are clearly within the original created kinds which is explained under the science of Baraminology.

Phrenology is more of a science than baraminology is.

 

[Smoke]

What is a kind?

Kind is a weasel word used by creationists in a feeble attempt to disguise the fact that creationism is nonsense. To give it a specific definition would defeat the point of it, which is to obscure, not to reveal.

 

[Jose Fly]

Sheesh guys! Don't you get it?

A kind is the limit beyond which organisms can't evolve. Where is the line they can't evolve past? A kind. What is a kind? It's the limit to how much organisms can evolve. What's the limit? A kind. They can't evolve out of their kinds. A kind is what organisms can't evolve past.

Easy.

 

[Valjean]

How does a "kind" know to stop changing? How does it prevent mutation? How does it ensure that all offspring will be identical?

And how does it ward off extinction if it's no longer able to adapt to environmental changes?

 

[Man of Faith]

How is this observed?


You're shifting the goalposts. This isn't about me establishing a common ancestor; it's about you establishing that there are hard limits to the change of species.

Now, I think your "observable limits" are false, since change that transcends those limits has been observed, however, let's just set this aside for a moment. Frankly, I don't see how the sorts of observations you describe would establish the sorts of limits you suggest, even if we assume the premises of your argument.

As an analogy, say some anthropologist has been observing me for my whole life. He or she would have noted that I've never once been to Europe. I've never even been within a few thousand kilometers of Europe. Now... does this imply that the anthropologist can validly conclude that I'm incapable of getting on a plane and flying to Europe?

It seems to me that your argument employs this sort of reasoning.

I disagree that change has been observed that has changed one kind of organism into another kind of organism.

 

[Man of Faith]

So if I understand you, what you're saying is that DNA does not mutate? Is that right?

What is a kind again?

Have you observed a random mutation that has changed one organism into another kind of organism?

 

[Man of Faith]

That's bull. Creationists don't use the scientific method because you start with your conclusion. That is not scientific at all. Not to mention you can't test for god or creationism. You can't do any experiment with the premise of god because god is unprovable. Therefore, what you are left with is bastardization of already existing data in the hopes of discrediting actual scientists. However, that still doesn't prove what you want it to. You cannot prove creationism by trying to disprove evolution no matter how hard you try to do so with your bastardization techniques. Just because you twist some data around and say "look! that doesn't make sense!" does NOT bring one to the automatic SCIENTIFIC conclusion that "goddidit" and it never will.

Just like evolutionists we interpret the data to fit our model of how mankind got here. There is no difference.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Just like evolutionists we interpret the data to fit our model of how mankind got here. There is no difference.

Actually there is. Evolutionists can provide evidence for evolution. Fossil record, geological table, etc. Creationists can provide psuedo-science and the Bible, presented as literal.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Have you observed a random mutation that has changed one organism into another kind of organism?

Uh you better check human history again. Humans ourselves have mutated and changed a lot. Evolution doesn't say one organism mutates into another organism. Not over night like you're trying to put forth. Evolution is a very slow, gradual process. We wouldn't say humans have mutated into another organism, but we would say we've mutated, our bodies have changed gradually over time.

 

[Man of Faith]

Uh you better check human history again. Humans ourselves have mutated and changed a lot. Evolution doesn't say one organism mutates into another organism. Not over night like you're trying to put forth. Evolution is a very slow, gradual process. We wouldn't say humans have mutated into another organism, but we would say we've mutated, our bodies have changed gradually over time.

That's the model, I was asking if it has been observed.

 

[Man of Faith]

Actually there is. Evolutionists can provide evidence for evolution. Fossil record, geological table, etc. Creationists can provide psuedo-science and the Bible, presented as literal.

The evidence for evolution is the same evidence for creation. It only supports evolution with a prior acceptance of evoluton.

 

[DarkSun]

I have left out the posters name to avoid "calling out" another member.
But I would like to know if anyone who agrees with this statement would care to provide the scientific "Creationist" evidence that is equal to the evidence supporting the ToE.

Anyone?

[youtube]E_EXqdJ4L7I[/youtube]
It's called the Bible.

 

[tumbleweed41]

That's the model, I was asking if it has been observed.

Yes. Observed, tested and verified.

The evidence for evolution is the same evidence for creation. It only supports evolution with a prior acceptance of evoluton.

Wrong. It supports it with a prior acceptance of reality.

 

[Man of Faith]

What is a kind? Baraminoogy is not a science. What is a kind? We know that, it's fundamental to the ToE. But until you learn what the ToE says, you don't realize that. [qutoe] Let's say that Darwin was right and I think he was that some of the same species of birds have different beak shapes and sizes due to weather patterens. Well so what? Can you get from that to every creature has a common ancestor? I can't.

A kind is closely related the the family classification in the taxonomic ranks.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Since the OP is about the so called "equal validity" of Creationism and the ToE, lets stick to scientific facts and leave the pseudoscience of Baraminology out of the discussion.
(Unless anyone can show the overwhelming evidence and falsifiable, predictable and observational methods used in Baraminology....)

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Yes, let's stick to science in this thread. Man of Faith- do you know what science shows about how the human body has evolved over the years? We can see evolution just in that, without having to look any further

 

[Jose Fly]

A kind is closely related the the family classification in the taxonomic ranks.

So if you were aware of the observed evolution across family-level taxonomic classification, you would do what?

 

[Man of Faith]

So if you were aware of the observed evolution across family-level taxonomic classification, you would do what?

My investigation would go something like this. I would see if I was really aware of it. Then I would make a determination as to what the definition of evolution really is for that observation. And I would employ all my mental facilities to understand what it is, being careful to weigh each piece of data against what my mental model is. Then I would research creationists websites to see what they say about it. Then, depending on it's strength and validity I would ponder if a few days, weeks, or months, praying and asking God for understanding on how this fits into creation.