Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
No answers to my questions again. And again blocks of text get pasted and pages move on.
I may be forced to do some pasting of my own. J C, how about you save me the bother (and everyone else's bother) and just look back about two pages and answer my questions?0 -
-
...for the umpteenth time, a Kind is a group of organisms that are directly descended from a Created Pair of organisms.
And for the umpteenth time that is not a biological definition. It is gibberish.
You disagree?
Ok, explain how would would classify a organism, any organism (I'll let you decide) into a "kind" grouping. If you have a biological definition of a kind this should be relatively simple. You should have lots and lots of names of "kind" groupings, even if they are as boring as "Kind A", "Kind B", "Kind C" etc . Amazingly you don't!
You do not have a definition. I await your inevitable gibberish response.
We have been over this.The first primary test of a Created Kind are all organisms that can interbreed with each other....even with infertile offspring.
You said this before, which would basically make Kinds at the species level except for the very rare instances where two species can interbreed (such as horses and donkeys)
Obviously that won't work for Creationism, so when you were asked if the fact that two organism could not interbreed with each other meant they were different kinds you said no.
Which totally nullified this definition!
If two organisms can interbreed with each other they are the same kind, but if they can't they can still be (according to you) the same kind. So it is more smoke and mirrors gibberish.The second primary test of a Created Kind are all organisms that can interbreed with an intermediate organism. For example, if Organism A cannot interbreed with Organism C, but both organism A and C can interbreed with Organism B then Organisms A, B and C are members of the one Created Kind.
So if organism A cannot breed with C and they share no common organism that they can both interbreed with, they are not the same kind.
Are you prepared to stand over that and not change it like you did before as soon as it causes problems for you and the idea of Biblical Kinds.
Because if you are we are going to have some great fun in the next few pages ...0 -
.....In the name of Jesus Christ I ask for Galvasean be saved.
Self righteous much?...for the umpteenth time, a Kind is a group of organisms that are directly descended from a Created Pair of organisms.
The first primary test of a Created Kind are all organisms that can interbreed with each other....even with infertile offspring.
The second primary test of a Created Kind are all organisms that can interbreed with an intermediate organism. For example, if Organism A cannot interbreed with Organism C, but both organism A and C can interbreed with Organism B then Organisms A, B and C are members of the one Created Kind.
Excellent, I think I can see where you are coming from now........and just like conventional Taxonomy, further organisms can be provisionally allocated to a particular Kind on the basis of morphology.......and increasingly today, DNA sequencing is being evaluated as a means of definitively allocating particular organisms (that don't meet either of the two primary tests) to particular Kinds.
...and you've pretty much contradicted the first point. What's the point in having such a reasonably well defined means of 'kind' when you turn around and basically say you can also lump in any animal you think looks a bit like it.0 -
...and you've pretty much contradicted the first point. What's the point in having such a reasonably well defined means of 'kind' when you turn around and basically say you can also lump in any animal you think looks a bit like it.
He has been doing that for a while. Two or more animals belong in a "kind" if they can interbreed. And if they can't interbreed they may also belong in a "kind" :rolleyes:
Which is nonsense. What he should really do is define how you can tell that two animals are certainly not in the same kind. But he can't do that because he hasn't a clue how what "kind" actually is defined.
He introduced (possibly because he realised this, or possibly because he read something a Creationist wrote who in tern realised this) the idea of the magical Animal B in the above post as well.
A animal A maybe the same kind as C if there exists an animal B which they can both interbreed with. What is interesting about that? Well it again makes it almost impossible to determine if two animals are not the same kind, because how can you rule out that there is no organism, anywhere, or at any time, that both cannot interbreed with. This also acts as a chain system. A is the same kind as Z if there exists B,C,D,E etc etc. Where does the chain stop? Where there is no "Animal B", which is impossible to know so allows Creationist to claim the chain stops anywhere, normally around the magic number needed to get all animals on the Ark :rolleyes:
All this is designed not to actually classify animals into kinds, but to make the concept of "kinds" unfalsifiable.
The point from the Creationist perspective is that you cannot say that a classification isn't real, doesn't map reality, if one continues to keep the classification defined in such a way that it relies on the unknown to disprove it. And that is exactly the Creationists purpose, not improving understanding but keeping their little ideas so far away from proper science that they can never be tested or disproved.
Smoke and mirrors.
The proof is in the pudding. Where is the Creationist catalog of "kinds". There is none, no serious one at least (JC likes to bring up ligers at lot :rolleyes:) because these "definitions" of what is a kind are useless and pointless. You cannot classify animals using these definitions.0 -
Advertisement
-
...we aren't desperate for validation as Christians......but as Scientists, we want the evidence for the origin of life to be objectively and scientifically evaluated.
If you stuck to science when it comes to what you want evaluated...I suspect you'd find that as scientists you'd meet with a much warmer reception in scientific circles.0 -
I stand corrected ......and I should have said that I mostly quoted Evolutionists !!!!:o:)
You should also have said that you didn't limit yourself to topic-relevant quotes, as I showed.
Of course, that would mean that you'd have been agreeing with the criticism levelled against you at the time, rather than offering your mock outrage at being "wronged", so its unsurprising that you took the option of being "liberal with the truth" in the name of furthering your agenda.
Its a strategy you Creationist "Scientists" seem oddly competent at. Presumably you've convinced yourself that its not really lying, so it isn't really a sin.0 -
...we are ALL sinners....some are Saved sinners......and others are unsaved sinners!!!Your constant insistance that being a CHRISTIAN is in some way important and makes you more special. You being saved is purely a social and georagphical fluke. If you were born in a Muslim country JC you would be banging on about baraka and the prophet Mohammad. I've been around long enough to spot a born again like yourself a mile away.
That's blatantly obvious JC only a reformed sinner would be as evangelical as yourself. Most normal people don't need to be saved, we're quite alright as we are. Saved from yourself most likely, well I'm happy for you that you've found something to focus your life on. But do yourself a favor and stop being influenced by dangerous fundamentalists who are doing no more than trying to impose their point of view into law and using your precious faith and it's creation myth as a vehicle for their ends.
.....I'm not being influenced by ANY 'dangerous fundamentalists'....of the Evolutionist or any other variety.....and I DON'T want anything enshrined in law that isn't already there.
...being a Christian is indeed very special....
....I am indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God.
....I have full authority to rebuke Satan and his demons in the name of Jesus Christ wherever and whenever I find them.
....my eternal destiny is secure.
.....I will not be subjected to God's Wrath during the End Times
....and when I defend Jesus Christ and His Word on the Boards.ie He provides me with the words ....and that is why one modest Creation Scientist is able to demolish ALL of the arguments of scores of top Evolutionist Scientists.
Lu 21:14-15 Therefore settle it in your hearts not to meditate beforehand what you shall answer.
For I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.
Ro 8:31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?
.....what more could anyone ask for????:eek::):D:pac:0 -
....glad to see that you are awed by this fact.....and so you should!!!:DYou've promoted yourself to god's spokeswoman?
Wow.
.....Christians ARE Jesus Christ's spokespeople on Earth!!!
....we have full authority to promulgate the Word of God ..... and full responsiblity to teach all nations:):D
Mt 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.0 -
I'm not a sinner JC. There's no saved or unsaved, you really should look into it. It makes it a lot easier to be a much more morally aware person.
I said creationist fundamentalists btw... You are clearly being influenced by these people, why else would you be quoting these lunatics at every opportunity? You are doing their bidding JC plain and simple.
Being a Christian is simply being a theist, same as any other religion really nothing special. You may think so but you would being a christian an all like.
Like I said before you only think you are indwelt by "the holy spirit". If you think satan is talking to you that you need to re-buke him I'd really consider seeing a doctor. Where and when do you find him and his minions as a matter of interest?
The fact that you consider your eternal destiny as secure is really quite sad JC, especially if you consider as it would seem all you need to do in life is obey the bible to the letter. This is the time of eternal happiness etc. Live your life now every second of it stop thinking that it's going to get better after death. Be here and now, part of nature and the wonderful thing that is life and please try and stop dis-associating yourself from it by your constant instance that you are in some way removed and above all other life, non-human and non-christian.
What else could I ask for? Well I don't want anything really, but I'll ask for some creation Science for the lads, just for the hell of it y'understand...
Now, I'm going to take personal responsibility for you JC to show you the light and help you realise your true potential without the curtain of theisim clouding your judgement.0 -
Advertisement
-
....I felt your spiritual pain....and I was just relieving your spiritual stress!!!!:)Originally Posted by J C
.....In the name of Jesus Christ I ask for Galvasean be saved.
Galvasean
Self righteous much?Originally Posted by J C
...for the umpteenth time, a Kind is a group of organisms that are directly descended from a Created Pair of organisms.
The first primary test of a Created Kind are all organisms that can interbreed with each other....even with infertile offspring.
The second primary test of a Created Kind are all organisms that can interbreed with an intermediate organism. For example, if Organism A cannot interbreed with Organism C, but both organism A and C can interbreed with Organism B then Organisms A, B and C are members of the one Created Kind.
Galvasean
Excellent, I think I can see where you are coming from now...
....I gave a Scientific Definition of Created Kinds....and I gave the PRIMARY scientific Tests that DEFINITIVELY determines membership of a Kind.
.....I haven't contradicted myself...I have merely given the SECONDARY tests that PROVISIONALLY determines membership of a Kind for organisms that don't pass either of the PRIMARY DEFINITIVE tests.Originally Posted by J C
.....and just like conventional Taxonomy, further organisms can be provisionally allocated to a particular Kind on the basis of morphology.......and increasingly today, DNA sequencing is being evaluated as a means of definitively allocating particular organisms (that don't meet either of the two primary tests) to particular Kinds.
Galvasean
...and you've pretty much contradicted the first point. What's the point in having such a reasonably well defined means of 'kind' when you turn around and basically say you can also lump in any animal you think looks a bit like it.
DNA tests have the POTENTIAL to become primary tests for membership of Kinds (with further research and development).....but I must point out that they are currently only secondary tests without the ability to definitively determine membership of Kinds.
.....all very logical really!!!!:pac::):D0 -
I'm not a sinner JC. There's no saved or unsaved, you really should look into it. It makes it a lot easier to be a much more morally aware person.
1Jo 1:8 ¶ If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.
(NKJV)
...most of my quotes were from Evolutionists.....and indeed, they often provide the most damning quotes AGAINST Evolution!!!!:pac::):DI said creationist fundamentalists btw... You are clearly being influenced by these people, why else would you be quoting these lunatics at every opportunity? You are doing their bidding JC plain and simple.
.....he is pretty active on THIS thread!!!!:eek:Like I said before you only think you are indwelt by "the holy spirit". If you think satan is talking to you that you need to re-buke him I'd really consider seeing a doctor. Where and when do you find him and his minions as a matter of interest?
.....I try to live the Word of God in spirit and in truth....but I regularly fail....my spirit is often willing...but my body is often weak!!!:)The fact that you consider your eternal destiny as secure is really quite sad JC, especially if you consider as it would seem all you need to do in life is obey the bible to the letter. This is the time of eternal happiness etc. Live your life now every second of it stop thinking that it's going to get better after death. Be here and now, part of nature and the wonderful thing that is life and please try and stop dis-associating yourself from it by your constant instance that you are in some way removed and above all other life, non-human and non-christian.
I am not a hypocritical 'paragon of virtue'....just a sinner in need of God's infinite mercy...and the gracious forgiveness of my fellow man!!!
Equally, as a Christian I live life to the full....NOTHING that is wholesome and truly enjoyable is denied to a Christian.
....this should be good.....but before you wet yourself with the excitement of it all.....could I bring you down to earth with a (big) BANG!!!Now, I'm going to take personal responsibility for you JC to show you the light and help you realise your true potential without the curtain of theisim clouding your judgement.
...I must point out that my true physical potential is to die and decay within a few short years....
......and the only thing that will be eternal about me will be my salvation!!!:eek::)0 -
.....it's that time of night when we all can enjoy a few juicy quotes....this time from Prof. Paul Feyerabend (1924 – 94) late Professor of Philosophy at Berkeley
"Galileo wanted his ideas to replace the existing cosmology, but he was forbidden to work towards that aim. Today the much more modest wish of creationists to have their view taught in schools side by side with other competing views runs into laws setting up a separation of church and state." Against Method (1988) p.130 †
"Financial arrangements can make or break a research programme and an entire profession. There are many ways to silence people apart from forbidding them to speak -- and all of them are being used today. The process of knowledge production and knowledge distribution was never the free, 'objective', and purely intellectual exchange rationalists make it out to be." Against Method (1988) pp.130-131 †
"We must stop the scientists from taking over education and from teaching as 'fact' and as 'the one true method' whatever myth of the day happens to be." Against Method (1988) p.168 †
.....MBEEP........MBEEP!!!!:pac::):D0 -
....and here is some really thought-provoking stuff....again frome the great Philosopher, Prof. Paul Feyerabend :-
"Consider the role science now plays in education. Scientific "facts" are taught at a very early age and in the very same manner in which religious "facts" were taught only a century ago. There is no attempt to waken the critical abilities of the pupil so that he may be able to see things in perspective. At the universities the situation is even worse, for indoctrination is here carried out in a much more systematic manner. Criticism is not entirely absent. Society, for example, and its institutions, are criticized most severely and often most unfairly and this already at the elementary school level. But science is excepted from the criticism. In society at large the judgment of the scientist is received with the same reverence as the judgment of bishops and cardinals was accepted not too long ago. The move towards "demythologization," for example, is largely motivated by the wish to avoid any clash between Christianity and scientific ideas. If such a clash occurs, then science is certainly right and Christianity wrong. Pursue this investigation further and you will see that science has now become as oppressive as the ideologies it had once to fight. Do not be misled by the fact that today hardly anyone gets killed for joining a scientific heresy. This has nothing to do with science. It has something to do with the general quality of our civilization. Heretics in science are still made to suffer from the most severe sanctions this relatively tolerant civilization has to offer. " Knowledge Science and Relativism (1999) p.1820 -
.....and Wolfsbane, and all other scientific 'laypersons' on the thread should take great encouragement from this particular quote from the great Prof. Paul Feyerabend :-
"Will the laymen be able to come to a correct judgement? Most certainly, for the competence, the complications and the successes of science are vastly exaggerated. One of the most exhilarating experiences is to see how a lawyer, who is a layman, can find holes in the testimony, the technical testimony, of the most advanced expert and thus prepare the jury for its verdict. Science is not a closed book that is understood only after years of training. It is an intellectual discipline that can be examined and criticised by anyone who is interested and (science only) looks difficult and profound because of a systematic campaign of obfuscation carried out by many scientists (though, I am happy to say, not by all)." Knowledge Science and Relativism (1999) p.1870 -
.....it wouldn't be much warmer....it would be a much HOTTER reception ONCE we question the 'Sacred Cow' of Evolutionism!!!!If you stuck to science when it comes to what you want evaluated...I suspect you'd find that as scientists you'd meet with a much warmer reception in scientific circles.
MOO!!!!:pac::):D:eek:0 -
-
....I gave a Scientific Definition of Created Kinds....and I gave the PRIMARY scientific Tests that DEFINITIVELY determines membership of a Kind.
No you didn't, that is a misrepresentation of the truth.
You gave a "test" that can be used to determine if two animals are of the same "kind". Not only does that not provide a scientific definition of what a "kind" actually is, but by your own admission it doesn't even provide a definite classification for two organisms, because they could fail that test and still be of the same "kind" according to you.
It is like saying that a car is a Ford if it has a steering wheel, except for all the cars that have steering wheels that aren't Fords. Utter nonsense.
One of the easiest ways to resolve the issue is to explain how a biologist would determine that two animals are NOT of the same "kind" (without the introduction of an unknowable variable which you seem to love to do)
But you can't do that because there is nothing here but smoke and mirrors.
You need to provide such a loose definition of a "kind" that it becomes impossible to actually determine if an animal does or does not belong to a kind grouping because you need the "kind" groupings to be so loose as to allow any number Creationists like to pluck out of the air to explain Noah's Ark.
And people wonder why scientists object to Creationism in the class room. :rolleyes:0 -
1Jo 1:8 ¶ If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.
(NKJV)
Your missing the point there's no such thing as sin......most of my quotes were from Evolutionists.....and indeed, they often provide the most damning quotes AGAINST Evolution!!!!:pac::):D
.....he is pretty active on THIS thread!!!!:eek:
Self confessed Evolutionists or something like that, who cares?
There's that self-righteous brainwashing bull again JC, unless like I said you acutally think this thread is possesed......I try to live the Word of God in spirit and in truth....but I regularly fail....my spirit is often willing...but my body is often weak!!!:)
Can you elaborate please, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Do you mean you have some addiction issues or something?I am not a hypocritical 'paragon of virtue'....just a sinner in need of God's infinite mercy...and the gracious forgiveness of my fellow man!!!
Equally, as a Christian I live life to the full....NOTHING that is wholesome and truly enjoyable is denied to a Christian.
If NOTHING that is wholesome is denied to a Christian how come you are a sinner?....this should be good.....but before you wet yourself with the excitement of it all.....could I bring you down to earth with a (big) BANG!!!
...I must point out that my true physical potential is to die and decay within a few short years.....
See your coming along nicely already, that wasn't so hard now was it...
Question: How come you get to blame the devil for your transgressions and don't take responsibility for making the decisions yourself? Temptation my arse!!!
Blaming some dark angle and an demons for your misdemeanours, you sound like something from "Buffy the Vampire slayer"why don't you take a bit of personal responsibility for your own actions?0 -
.....it wouldn't be much warmer....it would be a much HOTTER reception ONCE we question the 'Sacred Cow' of Evolutionism!!!!
Scientists mount scientific challenges to aspects of Evolutionary Theory all the time, just as they do to many of the other aspects of science that your beliefs require the rejection of.
That's a lot of what science is, JC....falsifiably testing existing hypotheses and theories. You should know that, what with you being a scientist and all, but it seems to be another of these truths you prefer to play fast and loose with.
If you're receiving a "much hotter reception", then I would suggest its because you neither have the scientific wherewithal to back the controversial nature of some of the the questions you raise, nor the willingness* to correctly interpret the implications of what genuine imperfections and weaknesses you may see.
I mean...you can't even call evolutionary theory by its proper name, as evidenced by your quote above.
* I stop short of saying that you don't have the ability. I believe it takes a relatively good understanding of a topic to consistently misportray it as you do.0 -
Advertisement
-
....can I ask you HOW a Taxonomist can determine DEFINITIVELY that two organisms are the same Family or Order??No you didn't, that is a misrepresentation of the truth.
You gave a "test" that can be used to determine if two animals are of the same "kind". Not only does that not provide a scientific definition of what a "kind" actually is, but by your own admission it doesn't even provide a definite classification for two organisms, because they could fail that test and still be of the same "kind" according to you.
It is like saying that a car is a Ford if it has a steering wheel, except for all the cars that have steering wheels that aren't Fords. Utter nonsense.
One of the easiest ways to resolve the issue is to explain how a biologist would determine that two animals are NOT of the same "kind" (without the introduction of an unknowable variable which you seem to love to do)
....there are several species which have 'moved' Family or Order after new information was obtained....and DNA sequencing is almost 'throwing out the book' on some of the 'higher' Taxonomic Levels.....so provisional allocation isn't just a phenomena of Created Kinds and Creation Science!!!!:pac::):D0 -
...and you're missing the point that there is sin....and it causes death!!Your missing the point there's no such thing as sin...
....no, thanks be to God I don't and never had any addictions....except perhaps to the Word of God!!!!:)Can you elaborate please, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Do you mean you have some addiction issues or something?
....I am a sinner because I have inherited a sin nature as a result of the Fall.If NOTHING that is wholesome is denied to a Christian how come you are a sinner?
....I commit NO 'misdemeanours' as you term them...I am a law-abiding citizen ......but I am not so hypocritically self-righteous as to think that I am any better in God's eyes than any other sinner or a law-breaker.....because I'm NOT!!!!:):DQuestion: How come you get to blame the devil for your transgressions and don't take responsibility for making the decisions yourself? Temptation my arse!!!
Blaming some dark angle and an demons for your misdemeanours, you sound like something from "Buffy the Vampire slayer"why don't you take a bit of personal responsibility for your own actions?
....EVERYONE must take personal responsibility for their actions before God and man.....and I do so also!!!
......and I don't blame Satan whenever I sin in my thoughts or actions.....Satan has no power over a Saved Christian....the reverse is actually the case:-
Lu 10:17 ¶ Then the seventy returned with joy, saying, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name."
18 And He said to them, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.
19 "Behold, I give you the authority to trample on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall by any means hurt you.0 -
...as I'm heading out for a few hours this evening, I will give you your 'daily quote dose' early....and this one is from a DARWINIST....for all Darwinists:-Originally Posted by J C
.....it's that time of night when we all can enjoy a few juicy quotes....
2Scoops
Is it that time of night when you reveal the results from your scientific investigations into creationism? You know, the ones you've been HIDING from us?
Dr Barry Gale Science Historian at Darwin College, Cambridge University
"Though often brilliantly and ingeniously composed, his argument was based, in many instances, on new and often unsubstantiated hypotheses, sometimes fuzzy analogies and metaphors, the repudiation of competing explanations, and a frequent plea to complexity and general ignorance, rather than compelling, clearly incontrovertible evidence in its own support; and it is clear that Darwin knew this. " Evolution Without Evidence (1982) p.101:D0 -
....there are several species which have 'moved' Family or Order after new information was obtained....and DNA sequencing is almost 'throwing out the book' on some of the 'higher' Taxonomic Levels.....so provisional allocation isn't just a phenomena of Created Kinds and Creation Science!!!!:pac::):D
There is a huge difference between using DNA evidence to relocate an organism's place in the web of life and simply looking at then and saying 'it probably goes here, which is what Creationists seem to be doing. Granted mainstream science used to do this when no other viable alternative was available, but now that there is science is willing to admit previous errors and move on.0 -
-
Certainly....can I ask you HOW a Taxonomist can determine DEFINITIVELY that two organisms are the same Family or Order??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_tree
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linnaean_taxonomy
This is the point you are apparently missing.
In biology there is classications and a process, and while both can be redefined there is always still a process because there is always a definition. Linnaean taxonomy is a human classification system. It is easy to give you the definition of each of the elements.
And that is exactly what Creationist do not have with this idea of a "kind"
You have no definition of what such a classification is, nor do you have process to place one organism into one such classification.
Smoke and mirrors :rolleyes:....there are several species which have 'moved' Family or Order after new information was obtained
Certain, because the method of classification (the thing YOU DON'T HAVE) has been updated and refined. You have to have a process in the first place before you can refine it.
Heck JC if Creationists were doing this that would be great! It would mean they had scientific classifications and can be updated and redefined. You will notice that they don't, because they can't have it because kinds don't exist
In fact I would wager that you know perfectly well that they don't, and you are attempting to shift the conversation to talking about how biologists can re-classify organisms to avoid actually admitting that Creationist have no way to classify "kinds" to begin with....and DNA sequencing is almost 'throwing out the book' on some of the 'higher' Taxonomic Levels.....so provisional allocation isn't just a phenomena of Created Kinds and Creation Science!!!!:pac::):D
"provisional allocation" ... LOL :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
you don't have ANY process of allocation!! Creationists simple make this nonsense up as they go. There is no process to classify any animal into a "kind", nor is there any definition of what each kind is and what characteristics an organism has to have to be in that grouping. The only time you have ever attempted to define a process (if they can interbreed...) you have attached a bit at the end that nullifies what your original definition was (even if they can't interbreed...). You have to do this because you know that if any attempt was made to actually define this nonsense in a way that can actually be used then you open yourselves up to it being shown to not map back to reality, to be show to be wrong.
Smoke and blooming mirrors.0 -
....Creation Science uses DNA sequencing AS WELL......can I gently remind you what I have already said about this matter:-There is a huge difference between using DNA evidence to relocate an organism's place in the web of life and simply looking at then and saying 'it probably goes here, which is what Creationists seem to be doing. Granted mainstream science used to do this when no other viable alternative was available, but now that there is science is willing to admit previous errors and move on.
".....and just like conventional Taxonomy, further organisms can be provisionally allocated to a particular Kind on the basis of morphology.......and increasingly today, DNA sequencing is being evaluated as a means of definitively allocating particular organisms (that don't meet either of the two primary tests) to particular Kinds.":pac::):D0 -
-
...I have just the quote for you then....when it come to judging between the reasoning of a 'humble' Creation Scientists like me....and the authority of hundreds of Evolutionists called 'Steve':-Originally Posted by J C
......I thought you would like to hear what leading Evolutionists have to say about Evolution!!!!
marco_polo
I would much prefer to read you own 'humble' opinions on the whatever the creators intentions were JC.
....it is from the great Creationist Astronomer, Galileo Galilei (1564 – 1642)
"In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."
0 -
Advertisement
-
.....and here is what the not-so-great Evolutionist Francis Galton (1822 – 1911) Founder of Eugenics and Cousin and admirer of Charles Darwin had to say about Eugenics:-
"Eugenics is the study of the agencies under social control that may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations either physically or mentally.
The feeble nations of the world are necessarily giving way before the nobler varieties of mankind." "Hereditary Character and Talent" MacMillan's Magazine November 1864
......and here is more of the same SCIENTIFICALLY INVALID rubbish that this famous Darwinian used to confuse himself with:-
"Persistence in setting forth the national importance of eugenics. There are three stages to be passed through: (I) It must be made familiar as an academic question, until its exact importance has been understood and accepted as a fact. (2) It must be recognized as a subject whose practical development deserves serious consideration. (3) It must be introduced into the national conscience, like a new religion. It has, indeed, strong claims to become an orthodox religious, tenet of the future, for eugenics co-operate with the workings of nature by securing that humanity shall be represented by the fittest races. What nature does blindly, slowly, and ruthlessly, man may do providently, quickly, and kindly. As it lies within his power, so it becomes his duty to work in that direction." Eugenics: Its Definition, Scope, and Aims The American Journal of Sociology July 19040
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement