Thats creationism for ya, all buzz words and no facts or evidence.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Test Tube Yeast evolves to be Multicellular
- Thread starter Photonic
- Start date
Thats creationism for ya, all buzz words and no facts or evidence.
I thought you knew exactly how your god did it?
Are you turning into a devil-worshipper?Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
Well, it's a little fuzzy, but I've seen where that equates to science in some circles.
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
I thought you knew exactly how your god did it?
It's a fuzzy process but the fact remains that God did it.
You know what I was saying
Creation may or may not be true -- we just don't have a way to scientifically verify or falsify that at this time. It's a valid metaphysical idea as it stands, but it requires a lot of work and substance to fall within the realm of scientific inquiry.
That's not necessarily bad: science isn't the know-all and be-all of attainable human knowledge.
But it is a good point that "kind" needs to be more properly defined to an extent -- but that's not the real problem. The problem is goal post moving. A creationist can hypothetically just keep moving to broader and broader categories as they are challenged with evolutionary evidence:
Step 1: "Well, it's still a dog."
Step 2: "Well, it's still a Canidae."
Step 3: "Well, it's still a mammal."
Step 4: "Well, it's still in Chordata."
Any evidence that's given for an evolutionary history of how species branch off and emerge from one another can be brushed under the rug because a creationist can just push the meaning of "kind" back a step. If it's shown that dogs split off from wolf ancestors it can be said "well, they're still canines." If it's shown those ancestors split off from earlier ancestors shared by foxes and coyotes, it can be said "well, they're still Canidae." If it's shown THOSE ancestors split off from earlier common ancestors it can be said "well, they're still mammals." Where does the goal-post moving stop?
Why do you seem to have a problem with the idea that species evolve, then?
Last edited:
So, you're a Satanist, then. You told untruths about what was written down on this thread.Big give-away. That's also why you can't define the word"kind". Now we get you!
Last edited:
When I said evolutionary processes are "fuzzy," I meant something different from "poorly understood."
Where does "red" begin on this spectrum?
That's what I mean by fuzzy. Taxonomic separations are fuzzy in the same sense, so are allelic frequencies and origins. It doesn't mean "poorly understood," it means shades of gray rather than black or white.
There's no such thing as a "first dog," for instance, because if you were to look at a timeline with all Canidae ancestors you would never find a spot where there was a "first dog." But you'd certainly be able to spot swaths of time before any dogs existed.
Last edited:
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
The only thing fuzzy around here is brain mold.
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
I don't. I have a problem with them evolving into a different family of organism. Can a frog evolve into a different species of frog? Certainly. Can a frog evolve into a prince? That's fuzzy to me.
I didn't say fuzzy.
Which god? And how do you know?
Luckily for the theory, it doesn't state that a frog will turn into a prince. However, given enough time and depending on how the frog adapts to new environment changes it could become classified as a new species.
Each of these splits is "fuzzy." You'll never find a first frog, or a first human -- but you'll find periods of time when neither existed yet.
So, is a "kind" the same as family? We've been waiting for a creationist definition of "kind". Does family fit the definition of "kind"?
So, is a species the same as "kind". We're waiting for your definition of "kind".
If a frog turns into a prince it would falsify the Theory of Evolution. So, we all agree that it can't happen. Have you thought of a definition for "kind"?
Last edited:
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Frog is a fuzzy term. What exactly is a frog? How can you tell if something is really frog or only kind of a frog?
wa:do
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
Well if you believe God exists then sure, why not believe that God could be the source of such possible traits that may evolve.... Creation by God and even Design by God does not mean that evolution is not possible, heck it may even be that such a God may have used evolution to reach its design.
It is only if you interpret the bible (or whatever creation story you are an adherent of) literally (i.e. that every word is not just true, but means exactly what it says - it is not allegorical at all) that you run into problems. If you look at the story as more of a metaphor then you can incorporate scientific advancements into your theological based understanding of the origins of life and the universe.
Only literalistic interpretation of your creation story is challenged by evolution, not the creation story itself if you were to take a less dogmatic approach and to concede the possibility that your creation story was written for a bunch of people with limited understanding of the universe (they did not even know that there was iron in blood, let alone what DNA was) and therefore the story conveyed may have been simplified to a level that they could understand.
Matthew78
aspiring biblical scholar
Really? When did you earn a Ph.D. in biology?
Until you do, you have no credibility with me. I'm not saying this to be cruel but I am so tired of laymen creationists pretending to know what theyr'e talking about. Please get a doctorate in biology and then feel free to comment.
Matthew78
aspiring biblical scholar
the audacity of some people.
Tell me about it
I don't know. I have a hard time laughing when some creationists get arrogant and assume that their Bible makes them part of some superspiritual and intellectual elite. It gets irritating after a while.