Evolution, directed or un-directed?

[Tart]

For all those who think evolution is not directed, nothing but random chance, how do you know that? How do you know evolution isnt directed by God (or anything else at that matter)?

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 219 by For_The_Kingdom]


I don't think there's much else to do or see here.

As you say, even if the theist accepts evolution, it can be credited to the designing agent of their choice.

I only want to comment now on the absurdity of your "bottom of the food chain" line of reasoning.

If every animal form on Earth got wings and whatever else you wanted, you do realize there'd still be a bottom of the food chain, yes? By the process of elimination, there'd still be apex predators, and on the other end, the least successful.

You get that, right?

[benchwarmer]

Ok, great. So billions of years , countless millions of generational mutations in an organism's ancestry from the earliest life to present day, yes?

Billions of years with countless of millions of generational mutations, each mutation limited to its own kind.

Funnily enough, if you would actually provide a proper definition for 'kind', you are actually right.

A modern day bird is the same 'kind' as an ancient reptile who was it's common ancestor. The reptile gained so many mutations we slapped a special word on it and called it a 'bird'. Technically, it's still the exact same 'kind' as it's ancestor. Scientists also slap some more labels on things and break things into 'species' to help define which organisms can interbreed.

I've watch you dance around avoiding actually defining 'kind', but you are probably trying to say 'species' without saying it because that word is not in your holy book in the Noah fable.

What do you know, you unwittingly almost got it right

[JoeyKnothead]

When "kind" is a scientific term, well that.

A pickle is a "kind" of sausage, in that they share a similar shape.

[Bust Nak]

I will leave you to your absurdities.

So says the guy who believe in creationism.

That depends on whether you "know" it to be false but is passing it off as true. I personally don't know whether you know it is false or not...but either way, a lie is a lie no matter how sincere you are in telling it.

You are getting "falsehood" and "lie" mixed up.

If what they had was good enough, they wouldn't be eaten...at least not at the same rate that they are eaten now.

Incorrect. "Good enough" isn't defined by how often they are eaten but how well they reproduce.

Ok, then I will just give you non-observational/non-experimental/non-predictional* reasons.

That's religious.

Then I guess we have our differences on what is considered "simple" or otherwise complex.

That's not a matter of opinion, you are simply factually incorrect.

If being at the bottom of the food chain is what you mean by "working fine", then I guess we disagree with what "working fine" means.

That's the one of the main problem with your thesis, you keep using different meaning. And to think you have to nerve to accuse people of wasting your time and splitting hair.

Because if drawing a stick figure of a person requires intelligence, then drawing a painting of a person (Mona Lisa) requires even more intelligence.

Right, but it takes no intelligence to evolve, so your analogy fails.

You say "no particular reason", and then proceed to give a "particular reason"..literally contradicting yourself in the same sentence.

If "wings work for birds" doesn't count as a particular reason, then why would "ran out of cupcake" count as a particular reason? Any apparent contradiction here is due to your inconsistent use of the term "particular reason."

Again, we have different definition of "works".

That doesn't tell me why one answer counts as "particular" but another doesn't.

Sorry, can't do it. We talked about "what works" in this discussion, and I am convinced that theology "works"...or at least has more explanatory power than any naturalistic answer you can provide.

Then you are in the wrong forum. You are supposed to use science here as well as theology.

If you believe in any of those things despite answering "no" to those three questions, then you are not believing in science.

But that's what is demonstrable in science. Macro evolution is confirmed by science.

Practically the same thing I asked. I still got you down 0-3...

And that's why your accusation of "not believing in science" is so ironic.

"I see the fossilized remains of a long-dead animal. Therefore, reptiles evolved into birds".

Strawman argument. We observed the gradual changes of long-dead animal that fits what is predicted by evolution. i.e. the observation and the prediction that makes up 2 of what you called "The Big Three."

Jesus Christ <---one reason evolution isn't needed as a theory...when you have an agent of creation who can get the job done on the first try..and not depend on a trial/error process.

Right, it is also one reason gravity isn't need as a theory...when you have an agent who can just keep things from floating off the ground. It isn't exactly what I'd call a good reason.

So what?

So you were factually incorrect when you insisted they are not the same kind.

That doesn't mean that one vertebrate evolved into the other, doesn't it?

Sure, but it does mean that the "kinds" argument is invalid.

The evolutionist just simply have to assume that it happened that way...because that is the only way it could have happened according to their naturalistic worldview.

That's just how science work. What you call "assuming" is inductive reasoning.

And unless you are implying that genetics cannot mean common designer , then your mentioning of genetics brings nothing to the table.

Incorrect. That genetic can mean common decent, is the point I was bringing to the table.

But since you already admitted that it could mean common designer, then you are also admitting that evolution cannot be a brute fact without intelligent design.

Non sequitur. The conclusion that evolution cannot be a brute fact without intelligent design, does not follow from the premise genetics could mean common designer.

You are splitting hairs again. Proof is backed with good evidence. I am asking for "evidence which proves the absolute truth value (brute fact) of evolution without the existence of God".

If you don't want splitting hairs then use the correct terminologies.

You guys are claiming it is a brute fact with/without the existence of God...and I am asking for proof of such a demonstrably absolute statement.

That's why I also said "fossils" knowing that's what you probably meant by proof.

"Because I discovered the fossilized remains of this long, dead animal; therefore, a reptile evolved into a bird".

Again, the conclusion does not (necessarily) follow from the discovery. Thus, non sequitur.

Woah, is that an affirmation that the conclusion could potentially follow from the discovery, just not necessarily?

Nonsense. A "dog", a wolf, and a coyote are all different "species", but they are clearly the same kind of animal.

And yet here you are trying to tell me that crocodiles and ostrich are not the same kind of animal.

You tell me that evolution cannot be a brute fact if abiogenesis is false and God does not exist...and we won't ever have to discuss the subject of evolution again.

But panspermia...

And please don't waste any more of my time by mentioning "panspermia" in this context again.

No can do. I am not going to abandon the meaning of these terms for your sake. You are the one going with the weird meaning - you change your terminology.

Then it is a faulty comparison...

Incorrect. As long as the features highlighted are the same, the comparison holds.

The Big 3 (observation, experiment, prediction). That is what makes it scientific...not your Big 3, which is (faith, speculation, assumption).

Incorrect. Evolution is backed by observation, experiment, prediction.

Sure they do...no one is saying the system is perfect...but you guys are the ones making it seem like every thing is for survival...well, a bird relying on its wings will have a better chance of survival than one relying on its feet.

Right, that's why birds have wings.

But after all, evolution is all about progress, not perfection, right?

Correct! Why then, are you still me why rabbits don't evolve wings if you know that evolution is not about perfection?

You missed the point.

Right, because you never meant to imply that animals could evolve wings by preferring to fly, regardless of what you said. Perhaps think about what the implications are, before you say if you were a rabbit you'd prefer to fly.

Oh, so the hamsters had their "wing trial" already? How does that work? Evolution gives them a 30 day free trial with wings and if they don't like it, they return the wings...no obligations?

You are aware of the existence of bats, right?

So, "because crocodiles and ostriches are both vertebrates, that means one evolved into the other, or they both evolved from a common, distant relative".

Not necessarily, try "because crocodiles and ostriches are both vertebrates, that means they are the same kind."

There is a difference is a dog vertebrate evolving into another dog vertebrate...and a dog vertebrate evolving into a bird vertebrate.

Correct.

Again, if you can't see the difference there, then I can't help you, old friend.

No worries, the difference is easy to see. But I think I can still help you.

LOL. Forgive me, but that was funny.

Appeal to ridicule is a fallacy.

Voodoo science*

If voodoo is backed with as much evidence as evolution, you bet voodoo would be considered science.

A fox is a different kind of animal than any kind of bird. I would think that anyone without an axe to grind would agree with me there.

I can agree with that, the problem here, is that they can also be considered the same kind of animal because both are vertebrates. Just as cars and buses are considered different kind of machines, but also be considered the same kind as both are vehicles. Your argument here, relies of rejecting that consideration. The main point I am rising here in this thread is that "kind" is contrived, things can be grouped as the same kind or separated into different kind depending on artificial criteria. Why not insist that fox kind are created separately from dog kind? I mean you don't see dogs giving birth to foxes, do you? That narrative would fit the Bible creation just as well as the typical creationist narrative.

Same kind of what?

Same kind of Life, same kind of animal, same kind of vertebrates.

Crickets lay eggs, too. Point?

The point is it is an indication of shared ancestry.

If an ostriches' wings were on its head, it can still be said to have "4 limbs", and just because they have that in common does not necessarily imply macroevolution.

Correct, but we can infer macroevolution.

One has a long stout, and one has a beak...yeah, identical twins.

No one has suggested they are identical, merely shared a common ancestor.

I understand, gotta keep the religion alive.

If you understand you wouldn't be calling evolution a religion.

"No, you are never going to get that".

I have to try.

Yeah, but the theistic evolutionists recognize that even if evolution does happen, it happens because of the divine hand that is driving it.

You say that, yet here you are, acting as in evolution is trivially false with you SMH's and LOL's. If you accept that evolution is cannot be dismissed so trivially, then why the attitude?

[Aetixintro]

For all those who think evolution is not directed, nothing but random chance, how do you know that? How do you know evolution isnt directed by God (or anything else at that matter)?

Let's for the sake of the God of Laws of Nature say that atoms by Monad theory of Lady Conway and Leibniz are "directed" by a "God's temple" in them so that Abiogenesis takes place and that, hereafter, as "bodies" grow bigger, the Monads, bundles of atoms and molecules, assume greater and greater possibilities for action until the ultimate "controller" of Earth, the predators on top of the food chain and then "evolution" of Equilibrium from there, such that "life of God" sparkles on forever!

Cheers!

[For_The_Kingdom]

I only want to comment now on the absurdity of your "bottom of the food chain" line of reasoning.

If every animal form on Earth got wings and whatever else you wanted, you do realize there'd still be a bottom of the food chain, yes? By the process of elimination, there'd still be apex predators, and on the other end, the least successful.

You get that, right?

Yeah, that was as absurd statement, and I am sorry I said it. But still, the point was that if x animal had wings, it would have a better chance at survival. I mean, after all, you guys (evolutionists) are the ones walking around talking about "survival this, survival that"...get those hamsters some wings!! Better chance for survival, right?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Funnily enough, if you would actually provide a proper definition for 'kind', you are actually right.

I did.

A modern day bird is the same 'kind' as an ancient reptile who was it's common ancestor.

According to your religion (ToE), I guess so. And according to my religion (Christianity), Jesus is the Savior for mankind. So now what?

The reptile gained so many mutations we slapped a special word on it and called it a 'bird'. Technically, it's still the exact same 'kind' as it's ancestor.

Sure, again..that is what you believed to have occurred. You haven't seen that kind of stuff in nature, though. You believed that it happened x million years ago..and you can believe it as much as you want...but that ain't science. That is religion.

Scientists also slap some more labels on things and break things into 'species' to help define which organisms can interbreed.

And based on those results, which they can observe...we will call....SCIENCE.

I've watch you dance around avoiding actually defining 'kind', but you are probably trying to say 'species' without saying it because that word is not in your holy book in the Noah fable.

As I said before...a "dog", a wolf, and a coyote <---those are different "species"..but they are clearly the same "kind" of animal. No matter how you slice the cake, they are all dogs/canines.

What do you know, you unwittingly almost got it right

No, I got it all the way right, sir.

[For_The_Kingdom]

So says the guy who believe in creationism.

As I told DI..at least creationism is conceivable. I can't conceive of natural law describing how life can come to life and begin to talk..or how a reptile can evolve into a bird.

You are getting "falsehood" and "lie" mixed up.

Disingenuous.

false·hood


/ˈfôlsˌho�od/


noun

noun: falsehood

the state of being untrue.
"the truth or falsehood of the many legends that surround her"

•a lie.
plural noun: falsehoods

Incorrect. "Good enough" isn't defined by how often they are eaten but how well they reproduce.

You have to be alive in order to reproduce.

That's religious.

Which is what macroevolution is; the religion of the naturalist.

That's not a matter of opinion, you are simply factually incorrect.

Here is what I am correct about; you've never seen a reptile evolve into a bird, or anything fundamentally close to such a transformation in nature.

That's the one of the main problem with your thesis, you keep using different meaning. And to think you have to nerve to accuse people of wasting your time and splitting hair.

?

Right, but it takes no intelligence to evolve, so your analogy fails.

I wouldn't be too sure about that LOL.

If "wings work for birds" doesn't count as a particular reason, then why would "ran out of cupcake" count as a particular reason? Any apparent contradiction here is due to your inconsistent use of the term "particular reason."

?

That doesn't tell me why one answer counts as "particular" but another doesn't.

And none of your answers tell me why birds were fortunate enough to get the wings and other animals weren't. And saying "because wings wouldn't work for X animal" also tells me nothing..when x animal could have easily evolved wings that "worked for them".

After all, birds did.

Then you are in the wrong forum. You are supposed to use science here as well as theology.

If science can't get the job done, hey.

But that's what is demonstrable in science. Macro evolution is confirmed by science.

Sure it is..

And that's why your accusation of "not believing in science" is so ironic.

?

Strawman argument. We observed the gradual changes of long-dead animal that fits what is predicted by evolution. i.e. the observation and the prediction that makes up 2 of what you called "The Big Three."

No it isn't a straw man. You guys looked at the infamous fossilized archaeopteryx and said "this long dead fossilized animal is a reptile that evolved into a bird"...which is pretty much what I said.

Right, it is also one reason gravity isn't need as a theory...when you have an agent who can just keep things from floating off the ground. It isn't exactly what I'd call a good reason.

Of course not..because after all, mindless and blind processes doing things with all of this mathematical precision; that makes perfect sense.

So you were factually incorrect when you insisted they are not the same kind.

Ok, so if you go in a pet store and you ask for the reptile section, and they send you to the bird section...go ahead and accept it...I mean, after all, they are all vertebrates, right?

If you wouldn't accept this (which you wouldn't), you are recognizing that the "kind" you asked for is different than the "kind" that they showed you.

Again, evolutionists only get all technical when it comes to discussions on evolution. But when you apply it to practical, real life situations that happens every single day...all of the technicalities go out of the window...it will become more like "I asked for the reptiles, and this fool took me to the birds".

Sure, but it does mean that the "kinds" argument is invalid.

Then when you asked for the reptiles and was sent to the birds, there wouldn't be a problem, would it?

That's just how science work. What you call "assuming" is inductive reasoning.

Last I checked, assumptions aren't brute facts. I guess only in science are assumptions synonymous with brute facts.

Incorrect. That genetic can mean common decent, is the point I was bringing to the table.

I said common designer.

Non sequitur. The conclusion that evolution cannot be a brute fact without intelligent design, does not follow from the premise genetics could mean common designer.

Genetics could mean common designer...and if genetics could mean common designer, then evolution without intelligent design is possibly false.

If you don't want splitting hairs then use the correct terminologies.

SMH.

That's why I also said "fossils" knowing that's what you probably meant by proof.

Which is an answer that fails as proof and/or evidence.

Woah, is that an affirmation that the conclusion could potentially follow from the discovery, just not necessarily?

If God exits, then macroevolution is possible, right?

Gotcha moment: Failed.

Nice try, though.

And yet here you are trying to tell me that crocodiles and ostrich are not the same kind of animal.

SMH.

But panspermia...

LOL. I can only LOL in light of the comment below.

No can do. I am not going to abandon the meaning of these terms for your sake. You are the one going with the weird meaning - you change your terminology.

LOL. Yup, panspermia. SMH.

Incorrect. As long as the features highlighted are the same, the comparison holds.

Disagree.

Incorrect. Evolution is backed by observation, experiment, prediction.

Micro is...macro ain't.

Right, that's why birds have wings.

And that's why hamsters look at birds with envy.

Correct! Why then, are you still me why rabbits don't evolve wings if you know that evolution is not about perfection?

But with hamsters, to heck with perfection; I don't even see progress.

Right, because you never meant to imply that animals could evolve wings by preferring to fly, regardless of what you said. Perhaps think about what the implications are, before you say if you were a rabbit you'd prefer to fly.

Based on what I know now, I would prefer to fly.

You are aware of the existence of bats, right?

I am. But I don't believe the wings of bats or birds have anything to do with evolution, though. It has to do with creation.

Not necessarily, try "because crocodiles and ostriches are both vertebrates, that means they are the same kind."

We are talking about the same kind with evolution. You can feel free to point out any similarities you like, but that has nothing to do with whether one evolved to or from the other.

Correct.

Correct? That is the POINT!!

If voodoo is backed with as much evidence as evolution, you bet voodoo would be considered science.

SMH.

I can agree with that, the problem here, is that they can also be considered the same kind of animal because both are vertebrates.

Fine, and you can certainly feel that way. But what does that have to do with evolution? Nothing, I say. Nothing.

Just as cars and buses are considered different kind of machines, but also be considered the same kind as both are vehicles.

True. But evolution..

Your argument here, relies of rejecting that consideration. The main point I am rising here in this thread is that "kind" is contrived, things can be grouped as the same kind or separated into different kind depending on artificial criteria.

Sure...but again, evolution..

Why not insist that fox kind are created separately from dog kind? I mean you don't see dogs giving birth to foxes, do you? That narrative would fit the Bible creation just as well as the typical creationist narrative.

But I believe that foxes are a type of "dog". Or at best, "dogs" and "foxes" are all under the "canine" type. But I think that is about as far as you can stretch it when it comes to categorizations.

From a creationist view (Christian), I don't know how many original "kinds" there were from the beginning. But what is clear is that animals are, as it seemed (at least to me) from the beginning...began to produce after their kinds. That is what we can see.

And to go beyond that is speculative, to say the least.

Same kind of Life, same kind of animal, same kind of vertebrates.

I forgot what was discussed here.

The point is it is an indication of shared ancestry.

So they have a shared ancestry with crickets, too.

Correct, but we can infer macroevolution.

Well..

No one has suggested they are identical, merely shared a common ancestor.

Which I think is quite a leap of faith.

If you understand you wouldn't be calling evolution a religion.

Same thing. Origins.

You say that, yet here you are, acting as in evolution is trivially false with you SMH's and LOL's. If you accept that evolution is cannot be dismissed so trivially, then why the attitude?

I think evolution without God can be dismissed without any doubt. Why? Because there is a big abiogenesis/consciousness problem.

Passing it off as a brute fact is without God is disingenuous, IMHO.

[Bust Nak]

As I told DI..at least creationism is conceivable. I can't conceive of natural law describing how life can come to life and begin to talk..or how a reptile can evolve into a bird.

That's why we are here, put your creationism goggles down for a bit. Let start with a rhetorical question, does you ability (or lack there of) to conceive of a theory equate to the scientific merit (or lack there of) of said theory?

Disingenuous.

false·hood...•a lie.

Would you just drop your chip on your shoulder act for just one minute? Not all things false are lies. Lie implies dishonesty.

You have to be alive in order to reproduce.

Right, and if you are to be eaten immediately afterwards, you would still be counted as successful.

Which is what macroevolution is; the religion of the naturalist.

Incorrect. It is science.

Here is what I am correct about; you've never seen a reptile evolve into a bird, or anything fundamentally close to such a transformation in nature.

There you go with the word play again, you say "seen" and now I have to spend time explaining once again the difference between seeing with your eyeballs and scientifically observe. You asked me to not waste your time, when you are the one wasting mine. The obvious implication here is that macro evolution has not been observed, and that's simply not true, it has been observed.

?

Stop wasting my time.

I wouldn't be too sure about that LOL.

I am merely as sure about it as any other established scientific theory.

And none of your answers tell me why birds were fortunate enough to get the wings and other animals weren't.

If you acknowledge that getting wings was a matter of fortunate, why then would you ask me why? They got lucky in getting wings, while hamster got lucky in getting legs.

And saying "because wings wouldn't work for X animal" also tells me nothing..when x animal could have easily evolved wings that "worked for them".

After all, birds did.

Legs and wings both work, so some got wings and others got legs, sometimes legs work better, other times wings work better.

If science can't get the job done, hey.

That's moot since science can get the job done.

Sure it is..

There goes the hand waving dismissal again. At least that dismissal took more effort to type out than "LOL."

No it isn't a straw man. You guys looked at the infamous fossilized archaeopteryx and said "this long dead fossilized animal is a reptile that evolved into a bird"...which is pretty much what I said.

You know full well that was not the full extend of the claim. You are missing the reasoning that goes along side the fossils. Don't go accusing others of being disingenuous with your track record.

Of course not..because after all, mindless and blind processes doing things with all of this mathematical precision; that makes perfect sense.

Well, mindless and blind does not imply chaos, why wouldn't it make sense?

Ok, so if you go in a pet store and you ask for the reptile section, and they send you to the bird section...go ahead and accept it...I mean, after all, they are all vertebrates, right?

No, of course not. If instead I went in a pet store and asked for the vertebrates section, and they send you to the bird section... I would indeed accept it. I would also accept it if they were to send me to the reptile section. Because, after all, they are all vertebrates. It's not that difficult: All birds are vertebrate but not all vertebrates are birds.

If you wouldn't accept this (which you wouldn't), you are recognizing that the "kind" you asked for is different than the "kind" that they showed you.

Right, and I would be correct for doing so.

Again, evolutionists only get all technical when it comes to discussions on evolution. But when you apply it to practical, real life situations that happens every single day...all of the technicalities go out of the window...it will become more like "I asked for the reptiles, and this fool took me to the birds".

That's just your mistaken impression. The technicalities does not go out of the window, because being technically correct is being correct.

Then when you asked for the reptiles and was sent to the birds, there wouldn't be a problem, would it?

There would be. Your misconception around kinds is leading you to ask all the wrong questions.

Last I checked, assumptions aren't brute facts. I guess only in science are assumptions synonymous with brute facts.

That's why I keep trying to correct you - evolution is not an assumption.

I said common designer.

Right, and I said common ancestor. It seems you've missed my point again.

Genetics could mean common designer...and if genetics could mean common designer, then evolution without intelligent design is possibly false.

Sure, this is hardly controversial. Why exactly did you want to bring that up?

Which is an answer that fails as proof and/or evidence.

It only appears that way to you because you just can't help but making a strawman argument.

If God exits, then macroevolution is possible, right?

Correct.

Gotcha moment: Failed.

It seems you failed to realize the significance of what you said.

Nice try, though.

I know.

Disagree.

Again, facts are not thing for you to agree of disagree up on.

Micro is...macro ain't.

Incorrect. Both are backed by science.

And that's why hamsters look at birds with envy.

Maybe they do, what's your point? Just sayin' again? Because it sounds like you are making the same mistaken implication as before.

But with hamsters, to heck with perfection; I don't even see progress.

Are hamsters extinct? If not then they are good enough.

Based on what I know now, I would prefer to fly.

And as I've pointed out before, you better by just sayin' because what you or a hamster prefer is entirely irrelevant when it comes to evolving wings.

I am. But I don't believe the wings of bats or birds have anything to do with evolution, though. It has to do with creation.

Okay, but you do realize regardless of what you believe about the origins of bats, their mere existence invalidated your argument?

We are talking about the same kind with evolution. You can feel free to point out any similarities you like, but that has nothing to do with whether one evolved to or from the other.

Slow down and listen carefully please, I was offering a counter-argument in response to your "kinds" argument. It is not meant to be taken in isolation as an argument for evolution, it is brought up to invalidate your "kinds" argument. That it doesn't "prove" evolution is not a comeback. I've tried explaining this before, yet you keep moving your goal post back to this, it's irrational, quit it. Let me trying and simplify it some more:

Creationist: X proves evolution false.
Evolutionist: Incorrect. X does not prove evolution false because of reason Y.
Creationist: Y does not prove evolution.
Evolutionist: True enough, Y does not prove evolution, but Y does prove that X is an invalid argument against evolution.
Creationist: Y does not prove evolution.
Evolutionist: That doesn't help the original X argument one bit.
Creationist: Y does not prove evolution.
...

Correct? That is the POINT!!

Not much of a point.

Fine, and you can certainly feel that way.

Again, this isn't about feels, facts are not something to be agreed or disagreed up on.

But what does that have to do with evolution?

It has to do with the invalidity of your argument against evolution.

True. But evolution..

... is backed by empirical evidence.

Sure...but again, evolution..

... is true.

But I believe that foxes are a type of "dog". Or at best, "dogs" and "foxes" are all under the "canine" type. But I think that is about as far as you can stretch it when it comes to categorizations.

Why stretch it at all? Why not say all organism, even down to the sub-species level are their own kind and created separately? The is no scientific criteria for how far you can stretch. The Bible isn't all that explicit with kinds, and where it is explicit it put bats in the same kind as owls. Are you therefore going to have a easier time accepting that bats and owls share a common ancestor?

From a creationist view (Christian), I don't know how many original "kinds" there were from the beginning. But what is clear is that animals are, as it seemed (at least to me) from the beginning...began to produce after their kinds. That is what we can see.

And to go beyond that is speculative, to say the least.

Seems to you, you say. It's a subjective and arbitrary standard.

I forgot what was discussed here.

Under what "kind" could crocodiles and ostriches be both be placed under: They both falls under the kind of life, animals, vertebrates.

So they have a shared ancestry with crickets, too.

Indeed they do, and their differences indicates a more distant ancestry than between crocodiles and ostriches.

Which I think is quite a leap of faith.

Not when all the evidence fits with the prediction.

Same thing. Origins.

You are doing it again, is this bait? Are you trying to get me to explain the technicalities behind abiogenesis and evolution, just so you can accuse me of wasting time with technicalities again?

I think evolution without God can be dismissed without any doubt. Why? Because there is a big abiogenesis/consciousness problem.

Passing it off as a brute fact is without God is disingenuous, IMHO.

Well, I don't remember when brute fact became a thing in this topic, can't it just be the best scientific theory backed by observation, experiment and prediction?

I also asked you in another post, what is the distinction in the old Earth creationism you believe in, and theistic evolution? Theistic evolutionists believe in creation and believe in an old Earth, is TE not the same thing as OEC?

[For_The_Kingdom]

That's why we are here, put your creationism goggles down for a bit.

So, I put my creationist goggles down...while you keep your naturalistic goggles on? Sure, as fair as it gets.

Let start with a rhetorical question, does you ability (or lack there of) to conceive of a theory equate to the scientific merit (or lack there of) of said theory?

Depends on why I can't conceive it happening..and the reason is because I think it is naturally impossible for it to occur. And I cant conceive of logical impossibilities.

Would you just drop your chip on your shoulder act for just one minute? Not all things false are lies. Lie implies dishonesty.

Um, I made that distinction when I said "You may not be lying, but it is a lie" (paraphrasing).

Right, and if you are to be eaten immediately afterwards, you would still be counted as successful.

Successful in what?

Incorrect. It is science.

.....

There you go with the word play again, you say "seen" and now I have to spend time explaining once again the difference between seeing with your eyeballs and scientifically observe. You asked me to not waste your time, when you are the one wasting mine. The obvious implication here is that macro evolution has not been observed, and that's simply not true, it has been observed.

Um, I am simply distinguishing something I can see with my own two eyeballs (micro), and something that I can't (macro).

Just stating the facts. And no, just because I can't see it with my eyeballs doesn't mean that it didn't happen...rather, it just simply means that I have no reasons to believe that it did happen.

I am merely as sure about it as any other established scientific theory.

Well, based on your worldview, it must be true. It is the only game in town after you negate the existence of God.

If you acknowledge that getting wings was a matter of fortunate, why then would you ask me why? They got lucky in getting wings, while hamster got lucky in getting legs.

Birds have legs and wings.

Legs and wings both work, so some got wings and others got legs, sometimes legs work better, other times wings work better.

Same answer as above^.

That's moot since science can get the job done.

I gotta disagree with you there, amigo.

There goes the hand waving dismissal again. At least that dismissal took more effort to type out than "LOL."

That was actually funny LOL.

You know full well that was not the full extend of the claim. You are missing the reasoning that goes along side the fossils. Don't go accusing others of being disingenuous with your track record.

Bruh, was not the archeo considered the transitional fossil (reptile-bird)? So how does the "I found the fossilized remains of a an animal that died a long time ago; therefore, reptiles evolved into a bird" thing not demonstrate the rationale that was used?

That is literally what happened.

Well, mindless and blind does not imply chaos, why wouldn't it make sense?

Sure, because a mindless and blind process implies organized order, doesn't it?

No, of course not. If instead I went in a pet store and asked for the vertebrates section, and they send you to the bird section...I would indeed accept it. I would also accept it if they were to send me to the reptile section. Because, after all, they are all vertebrates. It's not that difficult: All birds are vertebrate but not all vertebrates are birds.

So you would be the only person in history that ever went in a pet store and asked for "vertebrates". You are better off going in the pet store and just asking "can you take me to the animals section?".

LOL.

That's just your mistaken impression. The technicalities does not go out of the window, because being technically correct is being correct.

And I've never technically saw a reptile evolve into a bird or anything close to such a transformation in nature.

There would be. Your misconception around kinds is leading you to ask all the wrong questions.

And your misconception about nature is leading you to believe all the wrong things.

That's why I keep trying to correct you - evolution is not an assumption.

In that case, neither is Jesus' Resurrection.

Right, and I said common ancestor. It seems you've missed my point again.

Oh, I got the point...I just disagree with you as to what should come after the word "common".

Sure, this is hardly controversial. Why exactly did you want to bring that up?

Because most naturalists don't seem to acknowledge the point, that is why...which goes back to the "you can't say evolution is a brute fact without knowing whether abiogenesis is true" spiel.

It seems you failed to realize the significance of what you said.

Oh, I got it.

Again, facts are not thing for you to agree of disagree up on.

Which is why I fully accept microevolution..you know, an observational fact in science.

Incorrect. Both are backed by science.

Yeah, ok.

Maybe they do, what's your point? Just sayin' again? Because it sounds like you are making the same mistaken implication as before.

Hey, if that's what you think..

Are hamsters extinct? If not then they are good enough.

The sabre toothed tiger went extinct. Was it because evolution didn't equip them properly?

And as I've pointed out before, you better by just sayin' because what you or a hamster prefer is entirely irrelevant when it comes to evolving wings.

Whether or not an animal evolved wings in the first place was also irrelevant..but that didn't stop them from getting wings, did it?

Okay, but you do realize regardless of what you believe about the origins of bats, their mere existence invalidated your argument?

No, because if you recall, my original question was "Why do some animals get wings, and some don't"...so you pointing out the fact that bats have wings is irrelevant, because I had already acknowledged that fact.

Slow down and listen carefully please, I was offering a counter-argument in response to your "kinds" argument. It is not meant to be taken in isolation as an argument for evolution, it is brought up to invalidate your "kinds" argument. That it doesn't "prove" evolution is not a comeback. I've tried explaining this before, yet you keep moving your goal post back to this, it's irrational, quit it. Let me trying and simplify it some more:

Creationist: X proves evolution false.
Evolutionist: Incorrect. X does not prove evolution false because of reason Y.
Creationist: Y does not prove evolution.
Evolutionist: True enough, Y does not prove evolution, but Y does prove that X is an invalid argument against evolution.
Creationist: Y does not prove evolution.
Evolutionist: That doesn't help the original X argument one bit.
Creationist: Y does not prove evolution.

I don't recall what was discussed there.

Again, this isn't about feels, facts are not something to be agreed or disagreed up on.

Facts = dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. Anything beyond that is speculative.

It has to do with the invalidity of your argument against evolution.

My argument against macroevolution is simple: Evolution cannot be a brute fact if God does NOT exist.

Plain and simple. Simple and plain.

True. But evolution..

... is backed by empirical evidence.

Sure...but again, evolution..

... is true.

LOL.

Why stretch it at all? Why not say all organism, even down to the sub-species level are their own kind and created separately?

I'm not sure what that means..

The is no scientific criteria for how far you can stretch.

That is what you say, but that isn't what we observe. We only observe animals producing what they are, not what they aren't. If you believe otherwise, then you are speculating. You are assuming.

That being said, we have no reasons to think that those changes can be stretched on a macro scale. I understand that some of us would like to believe that this is the case, however, if we believe this, we are going beyond observation, experiment, and prediction. We are going beyond science.

The Bible isn't all that explicit with kinds, and where it is explicit it put bats in the same kind as owls. Are you therefore going to have a easier time accepting that bats and owls share a common ancestor?

Um, no. When the Bible called bats "birds", it was a show of how they classified animals. Apparently any animal with wings was called "birds". However, one can believe that bats are birds without even hinting the idea that bats evolved into birds or vice versa.

Seems to you, you say. It's a subjective and arbitrary standard.

Subjective and arbitrary standard? What do yo mean? It is what I observe!!!

Under what "kind" could crocodiles and ostriches be both be placed under: They both falls under the kind of life, animals, vertebrates.

And? What does that have to do with one evolving into the other? Nothing.

Indeed they do, and their differences indicates a more distant ancestry than between crocodiles and ostriches.

Sure..

You are doing it again, is this bait? Are you trying to get me to explain the technicalities behind abiogenesis and evolution, just so you can accuse me of wasting time with technicalities again?

I forgot what was discussed here.

Well, I don't remember when brute fact became a thing in this topic, can't it just be the best scientific theory backed by observation, experiment and prediction?

So are we gonna just pretend like evolution isn't a brute fact in natural reality?

I also asked you in another post, what is the distinction in the old Earth creationism you believe in, and theistic evolution? Theistic evolutionists believe in creation and believe in an old Earth, is TE not the same thing as OEC?

Honestly, I am not aware of the two going hand in hand. In fact, I wasn't aware of either concepts (OE/YE) having any aspect of "evolution" in it. I thought it was strictly "age of the earth" stuff. But I could be wrong.

However, my position is; I am about 80% convinced that the earth is more than 6,000 years old, and I am even comfortable with the tracing the big bang back to 13.7 billion years.

That being said; from the moment that sentient life began on earth, I am convinced that the diversity in organisms were all, and REMAINED, limited to the micro level.

I don't know how many original "kinds" God created, but it is apparent to me that it is from all of those original "kinds", from which all varieties of those "kinds" came from.

It seems to me that this view most accurately reflects what we see today.