Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Miles]

.

Came across this little gem a bit ago and thought I'd share.




Thoughts?

.

[We_Are_VENOM]

That's just one of your many, many misconceptions about science. I can't think of one theory in science with no questions or disagreements remaining. A theory with no remaining questions to be resolved is dead.

Oh, ok. So we are in agreement that the ToE is not cut/dry, straight down the middle, with no gray area. Cool.

[The Barbarian]

That's just one of your many, many misconceptions about science. I can't think of one theory in science with no questions or disagreements remaining. A theory with no remaining questions to be resolved is dead.

Oh, ok. So we are in agreement that the ToE is not cut/dry, straight down the middle, with no gray area. Cool.

Are we in agreement that there is no such thing in science as a theory that is "cut/dry, straight down the middle, with no gray area?"

[The Barbarian]

That doesn't say what you claimed, either.

That is the implication, though.

No, that's just your revision of what it says.

There is no room for new "kinds" to be created down the line. Everything was completed during the creation event.

I know you want to believe that. But the Bible doesn't say that. And the evidence clearly refutes that. What we have here is faith on the creationists, in there new revisions. Nothing more.

Second, I agree with the Bible, all birds are of one "kind". No problems there.

And since the Bible says bats are birds, you have birds and mammals as one "kind."

This relates to taxonomy, which is completely subjective.

So you think the Bible is "subjective?" How so?

Here's your confusion; the Bible does not classify organisms by taxonomy. It does so functionally. So all flying beasts are birds by function. But science classifies things by taxonomy, that is shared phenotypes, homology, and genetics. This is why "kinds" have no meaning in terms of biology. They are merely functional categories.

And then reptiles were created just before birds, if you take a literal reading of the creation allegory:

Genesis 1:20 God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven.

Creeping creature = insects.

It doesn't say that. Another of your revisions to make it more acceptable to you.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #238]

God "made" bad humans? Or did humans use the free will that God gave them for evil? Hmm.

DrNoGods wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 6:27 pm
, then why not just kill all the humans (except 8) and leave the other members of the plant and animal kingdoms alone?

He did. Thus; the flood.

Wait a minute ... how did all plants survive this "flood", and why kill all of the animals that weren't lucky enough to make it onto the ark? What did they do wrong to incur the wrath of this god? I'm pretty sure that if this global flood actually had happened a large number of plants would not have survived, and lots of animals killed that didn't deserve it if it was humans that were the target of the mass murder. Pretty crude and inefficient for an all-powerful god isn't it?

A better option might have been to just poof another Earth into existence, beam Noah and his family over there for a restart, along with all of the "clean" animals and others with a free pass to the ark, and do a reboot that way. But we know this flood didn't actually happen when and how the bible describes it, and it is just a fictional account easily debunked by modern science.

[We_Are_VENOM]

No, that's just your revision of what it says.

Revisions are cool, just as long as the central message isn't.

Mother said "Make sure your homework and chores are done when I get home from work".

Revised: "Before mom gets home from work, homework and chores should be done".

Same message. If you aren't splitting hairs in one case, you are playing semantics in another.

I know you want to believe that. But the Bible doesn't say that.

Yes it does. Genesis 1:21

21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Do you see that, "God saw that it was good". It was good and done. Complete. No evolution needed. No evolution hinted.

And the crazy part about it is; reptiles aren't even created yet

And since the Bible says bats are birds, you have birds and mammals as one "kind."

Um, no. Birds and "flying" mammals, not all mammals. That is apparently Biblical taxonomy, which apparently differs from the bright/educated humans who will live some thousands of years later and who think that they know everything and what they say should be "written in stone".

So you think the Bible is "subjective?" How so?

What an animal is "called" or classified as is subjective.

Here's your confusion; the Bible does not classify organisms by taxonomy. It does so functionally. So all flying beasts are birds by function. But science classifies things by taxonomy, that is shared phenotypes, homology, and genetics. This is why "kinds" have no meaning in terms of biology. They are merely functional categories.

First off, if one decides to call "all beasts that fly" birds, then all beasts that fly will be called birds. This can be the case regardless of phenotypes, homology, and genetics. How one decides to "classify" animals is completely subjective.

Second, "kind" does have meaning in terms of biology. Canines and felines are different "kinds", obviously. If you disagree with that then I don't know what to tell ya.

I guess we are prohibited from using the word "kind", I guess it just isn't "technical" enough as it pertains to a concept plagued with bio-babble.

And then reptiles were created just before birds, if you take a literal reading of the creation allegory:

Genesis 1:20 God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven.

It doesn't say that. Another of your revisions to make it more acceptable to you.

The NKJV renders it different than that..

20 Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living [e]creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the [f]firmament of the heavens.”

At that point, no speculation is needed. More importantly, no evolution is hinted.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Wait a minute ... how did all plants survive this "flood"

Again, perhaps I need to reread the story to see if there was a divine all-powerful God behind the affairs...because these "how did X happen" questions are giving me the impression that the story is about natural occurrences, as opposed to divine interventions.

*Rereads story*

Yup, definitely God in there.

Perhaps you have a Bible where the person of "God" is omitted or something. I don't know.

, and why kill all of the animals that weren't lucky enough to make it onto the ark? What did they do wrong to incur the wrath of this god?

All life belongs to God.

I'm pretty sure that if this global flood actually had happened a large number of plants would not have survived

*rereads story again*

Yup, definitely a God in there according to my Bible. Which Bible are you reading from?

, and lots of animals killed that didn't deserve it if it was humans that were the target of the mass murder.

All life belongs to God.

Pretty crude and inefficient for an all-powerful god isn't it?

Subjective.

A better option might have been to just poof another Earth into existence, beam Noah and his family over there for a restart, along with all of the "clean" animals and others with a free pass to the ark, and do a reboot that way.

Again, a lion doesn't concern itself with the opinion of sheep. God is the lion here. Guess who is the sheep?

But we know this flood didn't actually happen when and how the bible describes it, and it is just a fictional account easily debunked by modern science.

Oh yes...I guess dead matter coming to life and beginning to talk has more appeal than an intelligent designer deciding to have engineering projects (creation).

Hey, whatever rattles your chain. Go for it.

[The Barbarian]

I know you want to believe that. But the Bible doesn't say that.

Yes it does. Genesis 1:21

Nope. Nothing at all about organisms reproducing according to kind. That's your addition to the Bible.

Do you see that, "God saw that it was good". It was good and done.

Doesn't say "done."

And since the Bible says bats are birds, you have birds and mammals as one "kind."

Um, no. Birds and "flying" mammals, not all mammals.

So then, ostriches aren't birds? Are you beginning to see how trying to patch this up with excuses, just makes more and more problems for you?

So you think the Bible is "subjective?" How so?

What an animal is "called" or classified as is subjective.

So the Bible isn't objective about animals. O.K. Why not?

Here's your confusion; the Bible does not classify organisms by taxonomy. It does so functionally. So all flying beasts are birds by function. But science classifies things by taxonomy, that is shared phenotypes, homology, and genetics. This is why "kinds" have no meaning in terms of biology. They are merely functional categories.

First off, if one decides to call "all beasts that fly" birds, then all beasts that fly will be called birds. This can be the case regardless of phenotypes, homology, and genetics. How one decides to "classify" animals is completely subjective.

You could classify them by color. But homologies and genetics allows you to classify them by relationship.

Second, "kind" does have meaning in terms of biology.

Nope. Binomial nomenclature has no "kinds." To vague a word. For example, you think all birds, comprising a huge variety of organisms, are of one kind. But I suspect that you consider humans and chimpanzees, who are more closely related to each other than either is to any other ape, to be two different kinds. So you're stuck behind a rock and a hard place.

Canines and felines are different "kinds", obviously.

No, by your bird classification, canines and felids are one kind, the carnivora. Just one order of the carnivoriformes. There is much less genetic, anatomic and evolutionary distance between dogs and cats then there is between groups of birds.

I guess we are prohibited from using the word "kind", I guess it just isn't "technical" enough.

Too vague, as it pertains to a concept plagued with creationist-babble.

And then reptiles were created just before birds, if you take a literal reading of the creation allegory:

Genesis 1:20 God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven.

The NKJV renders it different than that..

Ah, so scripture was wrong until the NIKJV was published? You sure about that? How do you know this new change isn't wrong?

At that point, no speculation is needed. More importantly, no evolution is hinted.

No electricity, either. Or viruses, or hibernation. Lots of things are true that aren't in the Bible. The point is that evolution is consistent with the Bible, but the text itself rules out literal 24 hour days in the creation story.

[The Barbarian]

Again, perhaps I need to reread the story to see if there was a divine all-powerful God behind the affairs...because these "how did X happen" questions are giving me the impression that the story is about natural occurrences, as opposed to divine interventions.

If you can call in a non-scriptural miracle to cover up any and all problems with your new doctrines, than any story is equally plausible.

I'm pretty sure that if this global flood actually had happened a large number of plants would not have survived

(more non-scritural miracles invented)

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #247]

Again, perhaps I need to reread the story to see if there was a divine all-powerful God behind the affairs...because these "how did X happen" questions are giving me the impression that the story is about natural occurrences, as opposed to divine interventions.

It is about questioning, from a science standpoint, these old stories from religious books (being this is the Science and Religion section). God magic can explain virtually anything no matter how unlikely or ridiculous, which ends any reason to debate the validity of the old stories at all. But I still maintain that even if god magic was involved (which it would have to be to cause such a global flood, then completely hide any evicence of it afterwards as there is no evidence of any kind for it today), he/she/it chose a very inefficient, cruel and time consuming method to do the killing.

That approach is inconsistent with god magic don't you think, especially since there is no reason to teach a lesson to the people being killed, and if the intent was mainly to kill all but 8 humans it would have saved a tremendous amount of time and hassle for the imaginary Noah and his gang if god had just made all the other humans vanish into thin air (which he could have done, of course, with more god magic). But that wouldn't make for a very interesting story I suppose. More likely that the writers of Genesis wanted to embellish the much earlier flood myth from the Epic of Gilgamesh, but they followed it in the same order without much imagination for some reason.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Nope. Nothing at all about organisms reproducing according to kind. That's your addition to the Bible.

Nope. Nothing at all about organisms of one kind producing organisms of different kinds. That's your addition to the Bible.

Living organisms were all created in 2 days (5th and 6th day). Nothing in there at all about a long, drawn out, 100 million year evolutionary process.

Doesn't say "done."

It doesn't say "in a hundred million years, different "kinds" will emerge" either, but that hasn't stopped you from believing that.

Again, implication. Every living thing (kind) was created in 2 days, which contradicts the evolutionists view that different kinds emerged in later days.

So then, ostriches aren't birds?

Who said that? I didn't.

So you think the Bible is "subjective?" How so?

Did I say the Bible is subjective?

So the Bible isn't objective about animals. O.K. Why not?

Straw man.

Here's your confusion; the Bible does not classify organisms by taxonomy. It does so functionally. So all flying beasts are birds by function. But science classifies things by taxonomy, that is shared phenotypes, homology, and genetics. This is why "kinds" have no meaning in terms of biology. They are merely functional categories.

Already responded to this.

You could classify them by color. But homologies and genetics allows you to classify them by relationship.

Canines produce canines, felines produce felines. How is that for relationships?

Nope. Binomial nomenclature has no "kinds." To vague a word.

Subjective, as I have no problem using the word...as I am not bound by bio-religious laws (being prohibited from using certain words) and limitations. That is your problem, not mines.

I am free to use words as I see fit, regardless how certain people feel about it. No offense.

For example, you think all birds, comprising a huge variety of organisms, are of one kind.

I do.

But I suspect that you consider humans and chimpanzees, who are more closely related to each other than either is to any other ape, to be two different kinds. So you're stuck behind a rock and a hard place.

Well, I guess I am stuck...because after all, according to your religion (evolution), humans and chimps are related. But, according to my religion (Christianity), they aren't.

So hey.

No, by your bird classification, canines and felids are one kind, the carnivora. Just one order of the carnivoriformes. There is much less genetic, anatomic and evolutionary distance between dogs and cats then there is between groups of birds.

That all depends on what is meant by "kind", which I stated (imo) is limited to the genus, and not the order, as you suggest here.

Too vague, as it pertains to a concept plagued with creationist-babble.

Too vague? To who? To you? I never once had a problem using the word in any context involving evolution...and come to think of it, neither does the Bible.

Too vague for you...just right for us.

Ah, so scripture was wrong until the NIKJV was published? You sure about that? How do you know this new change isn't wrong?

I don't know, but they seem to all get us to the same place; which is that God created the heavens, the earth, and living creatures...all in 6 days....which is contrary to you-know-what.

No electricity, either. Or viruses, or hibernation. Lots of things are true that aren't in the Bible. The point is that evolution is consistent with the Bible, but the text itself rules out literal 24 hour days in the creation story.

I don't see a reptile evolving into a bird anywhere in there. Care to show me the verse?