The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

You can't show that life, even your ridiculous idea that a protein randomly forms, is impossible, just unlikely.

Therefore nothing is breaking the "laws of probability", what ever they are and you are just talking out of your back side.

...you have the right to be WRONG!!!:)

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

...you have the right to be WRONG!!!:)

And you have the right to be totally ignorant of both mathematics and science, a right you seem to exercise regularly. What a wonderful country we live in.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

And you have the right to be totally ignorant of both mathematics and science, a right you seem to exercise regularly. What a wonderful country we live in.

...when the ad hominem remarks start ... you know then that the Evolutionists have just lost that particular section of the debate !!!!:eek::D:)

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...strong words from a guy who thinks that it is a logical deduction to believe that pondslime will turn into man ... with nothing added but time ... and MISTAKES!!!!:eek::D:)

How do you know that is what he believes?
Secondly, we're onto abiogenesis again - what's next Big Bang?

JC,

I don't believe in anything (I assume Sir Night is of a similar nature ), I don't know whether the origin of the universe was chance or not, that is the point, I have NOT decided, you seem to have thought that we think it was chance and therefore we are nuts. Maybe we are, but you argument has been extremely poor.
I came onto this forum as someone who knew very little about both ID and Evolution. In the space of a month or so, my appreciation for biology has grown exponentially, I think it's fricking awesome!! Evolution is a beautifully elegant explanation of the species. ID design is basically 'a God did it' applied to things that God may have done but not the way ID proponents claim He did it. Imagine how pissed He'll be when you have to explain to Him how you got it all sooo wrong.
JC, the evidence is there in abundance, please open you eyes, at the very least refute our points with something other than meaningless regurgitated Hogwash. Honestly, I expected to learn the most from this thread, instead I've learned more about Christianity from the other threads.

*ramble over*
It appears I have come down with RAS Syndrome

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

...when the ad hominem remarks start ... you know then that the Evolutionists have just lost that particular section of the debate !!!!:eek::D:)

Hey, I'm just pointing out the illogical nature of what you claimed, that because something was unlikely you have proved it was impossible.

It is not my fault that such a statement shows a shock lack of understanding of both maths and statistics.

robindch

J C wrote: »

...and living organisms overcome and utilise the Laws of Chemistry ...

Weird. Are you saying that living organisms don't run according to the rules of chemistry? If so, what chemical rules are violated?

man of faith

There are 594 chapters before Psalm 118 and 594 chapters after - making Psalm 118 the centre chapter of the Bible. The very centre verse of the Bible falls on Psalm 118 verse 8 (118:8).

594 + 594 = 1188!!!

Here is what it says:

'It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man' (KJV).

Firstly the Bible demonstrates this unexplained numerical phenomonen, then follows up with a statement that blows man's wisdom out of the water. If you are choosing to put your trust in the theory of evolution, please remember this and please reconsider. There is too much at stake!

Sam Vimes

man of faith wrote: »

There are 594 chapters before Psalm 118 and 594 chapters after - making Psalm 118 the centre chapter of the Bible. The very centre verse of the Bible falls on Psalm 118 verse 8 (118:8).

594 + 594 = 1188!!!

Here is what it says:

'It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man' (KJV).

Firstly the Bible demonstrates this unexplained numerical phenomonen, then follows up with a statement that blows man's wisdom out of the water. If you are choosing to put your trust in the theory of evolution, please remember this and please reconsider. There is too much at stake!

And here we have the real reason that creationists are so unwilling to acknowledge the proof of evolution: the bible threatens eternal torture for anyone who doesn't believe it so they're too terrified to see the facts

Here's some of what the Qu'ran says will happen to non-believers:

2: 27 Those who break Allah's
Covenant after it is ratified, and
who sunder what Allah Has
ordered to be joined, and do
mischief on earth: These cause
loss (only) to themselves.

2:39, “But those who reject Faith
and belie Our Signs, they shall be
companions of the Fire; they
shall abide therein.”

3:90-91 "Verily, those who
disbelieved after their Belief and
then went on increasing in their
disbelief - never will their
repentance be accepted [because
they repent only by their
tongues and not from their
hearts]. And they are those who
are astray. Verily, those who
disbelieved, and died while they
were disbelievers, the (whole)
earth full of gold will not be
accepted from anyone of them
even if they offered it as a
ransom. For them is a painful
torment and they will have no
helpers."

If you're not willing to take the risk that a book that's threatening you is wrong you should become a muslim

monosharp

man of faith wrote: »

There are 594 chapters before Psalm 118 and 594 chapters after - making Psalm 118 the centre chapter of the Bible. The very centre verse of the Bible falls on Psalm 118 verse 8 (118:8).

594 + 594 = 1188!!!

Here is what it says:

'It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man' (KJV).

Wow I just realised.

Darwin was 73 years old when he died. My copy of the origin of species is about 643 pages long and it was published 150 years ago.

643 - 150 is 500 minus 73 is 420. 420 divided by 10 is 42.

42 = The meaning of life

Thats absolutely amazing. :eek:

PDN

man of faith wrote: »

There are 594 chapters before Psalm 118 and 594 chapters after - making Psalm 118 the centre chapter of the Bible. The very centre verse of the Bible falls on Psalm 118 verse 8 (118:8).

594 + 594 = 1188!!!

Here is what it says:

'It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man' (KJV).

Firstly the Bible demonstrates this unexplained numerical phenomonen, then follows up with a statement that blows man's wisdom out of the water. If you are choosing to put your trust in the theory of evolution, please remember this and please reconsider. There is too much at stake!

manoffaith, I would advise you to put your faith in the Bible rather than in the calculations of a 13th Century Catholic Archbishop and a 16th Century French printer.

The division of the Bible into Chapters did not take place until around 1200AD, and the verses were not introduced until 1551. So anyone reading significance into the arrangements of chapters and verses are constructing arguments on man made traditions rather than the Word of God.

So, by relying on calculations about verses and chapters, you are doing the very thing that Psalm 118:8 warns against. You are putting confidence in men rather than trusting the Lord.

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And here we have the real reason that creationists are so unwilling to acknowledge the proof of evolution: the bible threatens eternal torture for anyone who doesn't believe it so they're too terrified to see the facts

Maybe I'm having a mental block, but having read the Bible from cover to cover many times, I can't remember anywhere that it threatens eternal torture for anyone who doesn't believe it. Can you tell us where you're getting this idea from?

AKAIK the Bible warns that hell awaits for rejecting the offer of salvation in Jesus Christ - but not for disbelieving the Bible.

man of faith's rather bizzare calculations (culled from a chain email - he probably also got a donation of $8 million from a widow in the Ivory Coast) drew our attention to a verse that said it is better to trust God than put confidence in man. Even in the most fevered imagination of the most fundamentalist atheist I don't see how that can equate to "the bible threatens eternal torture for anyone who doesn't believe it".

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

Maybe I'm having a mental block, but having read the Bible from cover to cover many times, I can't remember anywhere that it threatens eternal torture for anyone who doesn't believe it. Can you tell us where you're getting this idea from?

AKAIK the Bible warns that hell awaits for rejecting the offer of salvation in Jesus Christ - but not for disbelieving the Bible.

I'd rather not discuss it thanks

man of faith

If you propose that evolution is fact, then why have we not found any evidence in the fossil record of macroevolutionary change. Since Darwin wrote 'Origin of The Species' 150 years ago, thousands of fossils have been found with none showing hard evidence of macroevolution. It amazes me how an atheist can argue vehemently that a theory becomes fact. This is because they want to believe its true. They will only go past this when they accept the truth, regardless of what it points too. This will take courage.

Darwin said himself that surely the evidence would be in the fossil record - we would have found it by now. Sure some paleontologists claim to have the missing link, but these examples are far from being definitavely irrefutable as they so claim. Common sense says how much of a mistruth this claim is.

Then we have hundreds of examples of irreducible complexity - as Michael Behe discovered in the flagellum of Ecoli Bacteria in 'Darwins Black Box'. You also have a giraffe neck. Google it!.
Just these two example of irreducible complexity pose serious problems with evolution. For those who don't know what I'm talking about, irreducible complexity is where you have a mechanism in nature that can't function unless all the parts of the mechanism work. Seeing as evolution has to allow for progression over time, evolution is an impossibilty with irreducibly complex biological mechanisms.

We also have the problems of radiometric dating where admittedly major assumptions must be made. This is a real problem considering that evolution requires a very old earth to validate itself.

I choose not to comment on the statements about Islam. Christians are being murdered all over the world by Islamic extremists, so I choose not to say a single word in relation to it - in fear that one of these extremists may try and hunt me down and kill me. They may curse us for our beliefs and kill us, yet I choose the way of love and forgiveness and will not fight their fire with fire. I will say that I will not choose to accept the religion of a terrorist, fuelled by a sense of hatred and retribution.

Sam Vimes

man of faith wrote: »

If you propose that evolution is fact, then why have we not found any evidence in the fossil record of macroevolutionary change. Since Darwin wrote 'Origin of The Species' 150 years ago, thousands of fossils have been found with none showing hard evidence of macroevolution. It amazes me how an atheist can argue vehemently that a theory becomes fact. This is because they want to believe its true. They will only go past this when they accept the truth, regardless of what it points too. This will take courage.

Darwin said himself that surely the evidence would be in the fossil record - we would have found it by now. Sure some paleontologists claim to have the missing link, but these examples are far from being definitavely irrefutable as they so claim. Common sense says how much of a mistruth this claim is.

Then we have hundreds of examples of irreducible complexity - as Michael Behe discovered in the flagellum of Ecoli Bacteria in 'Darwins Black Box'. You also have a giraffe neck. Google it!.
Just these two example of irreducible complexity pose serious problems with evolution. For those who don't know what I'm talking about, irreducible complexity is where you have a mechanism in nature that can't function unless all the parts of the mechanism work. Seeing as evolution has to allow for progression over time, evolution is an impossibilty with irreducibly complex biological mechanisms.

We also have the problems of radiometric dating where admittedly major assumptions must be made. This is a real problem considering that evolution requires a very old earth to validate itself.

Yes yes welcome to 1215 pages ago. We all know what irreducible complexity is supposed to be and it's been refuted a million times before. To pick one of your examples, if the rate of radioactive decay could be changed we wouldn't have any problem with radioactive waste, we'd just increase its half life and eliminate the danger. Radiometric dating is perfectly valid.

man of faith wrote: »

I choose not to comment on the statements about Islam. Christians are being murdered all over the world by Islamic extremists, so I choose not to say a single word in relation to it - in fear that one of these extremists may try and hunt me down and kill me. They may curse us for our beliefs and kill us, yet I choose the way of love and forgiveness and will not fight their fire with fire. I will say that I will not choose to accept the religion of a terrorist, fuelled by a sense of hatred and retribution.

And yet the Qu'ran claims that anyone who rejects Islam "shall be companions of the Fire; they shall abide therein." just like the bible claims that the only way to salvation is through Jesus. The existence of Islamic terrorists does not prove their claim false, in fact since you think it's a religion fuelled by hatred and retribution it's a lot less likely that Allah would forgive you for believing the wrong religion. That's a big risk you're taking there.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

..planes overcome and utilise the Laws of Physics ... BECAUSE intelligence has been applied to DESIGNING them and their manufacturing systems ...

...and living organisms overcome and utilise the Laws of Chemistry ... BECAUSE intelligence has been applied to DESIGNING them and their manufacturing systems !!!:)

You are being dishonest. You said Darwinian evolution violates laws of probability. Now you are talking about "overcoming", which is entirely different. Darwinian evolution obviously overcomes improbability through the natural selection of random genetic mutations. But it does not violate any laws of probability.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

...The quote in my sig has ALWAYS made it clear that Prof Gould WAS an Evolutionist ... and it highlights the 'nagging problem' of absence of fossil intermediates that STILL continues to be a problem for a gradualistic (i.e. Darwinian) account of Evolution - and which Prof Gould tried to reconcile with his ideas on Punctuated Equilibrium/Evolution AKA 'The Hopeful Monster' Theory!!!!!

I have decided to further clarify in my sig that Prof Gould was a Punctuated Evolutionist.

The quote is valid and true quote from the man and it highlights the CONTINUING controversy within Evolution over the absence of intermediates ... which,of course, is what you would EXPECT if Creation is true!!!!

It is used by me with full espect for a great scientist who 'called it like it is' ... until he discovered that it was helping the Creation Science Movement.

Punctuated equilibrium is Darwinian evolution. Also, Gould says there are plenty of transition fossils.

wolfsbane

The Mad Hatter said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Since we have never observed anything crossing that barrier, it is not unreasonable to (scientifically) assume it exists.
You misunderstand. No-one has observed the barrier itself. You just say it's there.

Lots of unseen things are part of scientific theory. The Oort Cloud, for example. They may or may not be real, but they provide an explanation for observed phenomena.

You guys allege speciation can carry primitive slime through many stages until it forms all the biosphere we observe today. But you have never observed it changing any organism to other than a variation of that organism - winged flies to wingless flies, for example. The burden of proof is on you, not us.

Quote:
Creationists also have the advantage of revelation, which confirms it exists.
Revelation's worthless. You may as well just say "we imagine it."

The testimony of an eye-witness is not worthless. We have that testimony from the only one who was there at the time. You may doubt His veracity, or our veracity in telling you about Him - that's your problem. But for us His testimony is priceless.

wolfsbane

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Not if you know what speciation is. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding. Speciation suggests that what you would call 'kinds' can diverge into groups that can no longer reproduce. These are new branches in the tree of life. This is evolution.

It's all very simple.

No, that is still a creationist understanding of speciation. This, from an article on rapid speciation, for example [emphasis mine]:
Informed creationists have long stressed that natural selection can easily cause major variation in short time periods, by acting on the created genetic information already present. But this does not support the idea of evolution in the molecules-to-man sense, because no new information has been added.

Selection by itself gets rid of information, and of all observed mutations which have some effect on survival or function,15 so far even the rare ‘beneficial’ ones are also losses of information. The late-maturing, larger guppies resulted simply from a re-shuffling of existing genetic material.16 Such variation can even be sufficient to prevent two groups from interbreeding with each other any more, thus forming new ‘species’ by definition, without involving any new information.
http://creation.com/speedy-species-surprise

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Mad Hatter said:

Lots of unseen things are part of scientific theory. The Oort Cloud, for example. They may or may not be real, but they provide an explanation for observed phenomena.

You guys allege speciation can carry primitive slime through many stages until it forms all the biosphere we observe today. But you have never observed it changing any organism to other than a variation of that organism - winged flies to wingless flies, for example. The burden of proof is on you, not us.

What you are asking for takes many generations, thousands or millions of years. It's not possible to show it happening in a lab but the evidence of it happening is all around us. It has been observed to have happened in the past. What you are suggesting is akin to saying that you can walk to your next door neighbour's house but it's completely impossible to walk from Cork to Donegal and you won't accept anyone claiming otherwise unless they can show you someone doing it in the same time it takes you to walk to your neighbour's. Evolution from one "type" of organism to another takes a long time but it's exactly the same process as evolution within organisms. There are not two "kinds" of DNA, one of which determines the species and is susceptible to variation and the other of which determines the "type" and is fixed and unchanging. It's all equally susceptible to variation.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The testimony of an eye-witness is not worthless. We have that testimony from the only one who was there at the time. You may doubt His veracity, or our veracity in telling you about Him - that's your problem. But for us His testimony is priceless.

What about the testimony of the dedicated followers of other religions who all make similar claims? Why is theirs worthless?

wolfsbane

Malty_T said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Since we have never observed anything crossing that barrier, it is not unreasonable to (scientifically) assume it exists.

Creationists also have the advantage of revelation, which confirms it exists.
Wow, wow an infinite limit exists???Even if it does, it's hardly going to effect life on a macroscopic scale. Just take one look at the blue whale, it can swim at 20 mph and weighs up to 200 tonnes! It is even close to it's limit of growth - nope
Seeing as you acknowledged speciation look at how small the dinos were when they began, and look how big they were able to er speciate in size..(all in the course of a few thousand years )

Not sure what you are saying. What I'm saying is that there is a barrier for all speciation - change is only within kind.

As to dinosaurs beginning small and ending up large - that would be evolutionary doctrine, not creationism. Dinosaurs began at the size we find them in the fossil record - some big, most small, many in between.

I suspect you mean speciation allowed a tiny organism like slime to evolve into massive creatures like the blue whale, therefore any limits seem very loose. But that is begging the question - such speciation has not been observed, and the 'limit' was offered as an explanation of why. If such evolution had been observed, then I would not be disputing it here.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

Not sure what you are saying. What I'm saying is that there is a barrier for all speciation - change is only within kind.

What is the nature of this barrier? Can you point to a part of the DNA strand in every species that's "fixed"? You say that the burden of proof is on us but you are now stating that there is a barrier, presumably within our DNA, that prevents changing from one "kind" to another so the burden of proof is now on you. Please present your evidence for this barrier. I have seen nothing in the field of genetics to suggest that any such barrier exists.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane

Lots of unseen things are part of scientific theory. The Oort Cloud, for example. They may or may not be real, but they provide an explanation for observed phenomena.

You guys allege speciation can carry primitive slime through many stages until it forms all the biosphere we observe today. But you have never observed it changing any organism to other than a variation of that organism - winged flies to wingless flies, for example. The burden of proof is on you, not us.
What you are asking for takes many generations, thousands or millions of years. It's not possible to show it happening in a lab

I appreciate your difficulty, and I'm not saying evolution is disproved because it can't be demonstrated in action. Just that it cannot be affirmed as having been demonstrated.

but the evidence of it happening is all around us. It has been observed to have happened in the past.

No, it hasn't. All you guys have done is look at the evidence and suggest how it might be explained. Creationists have done the same. Both are scientific theories that attempt to make sense of the evidence.

What you are suggesting is akin to saying that you can walk to your next door neighbour's house but it's completely impossible to walk from Cork to Donegal and you won't accept anyone claiming otherwise unless they can show you someone doing it in the same time it takes you to walk to your neighbour's.

As above, I'm not saying it is impossible to walk from Cork to Donegal because you can't do it in a few minutes. Or that you can't micro-lite to the moon because you can't do it in the time I can to the next field.

Evolution from one "type" of organism to another takes a long time but it's exactly the same process as evolution within organisms. There are not two "kinds" of DNA, one of which determines the species and is susceptible to variation and the other of which determines the "type" and is fixed and unchanging. It's all equally susceptible to variation.

That is begging the question. You assert there is no intrinsic limit - but you do not prove it.

Can you micro-lite to the Moon, given enough time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The testimony of an eye-witness is not worthless. We have that testimony from the only one who was there at the time. You may doubt His veracity, or our veracity in telling you about Him - that's your problem. But for us His testimony is priceless.
What about the testimony of the dedicated followers of other religions who all make similar claims? Why is theirs worthless?

It depends on the truthfulness of the Witness. There are many liars out there.

How one knows the difference has been dealt with before, but I'm happy to discuss it if you wish.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sam Vimes said:

I appreciate your difficulty, and I'm not saying evolution is disproved because it can't be demonstrated in action. Just that it cannot be affirmed as having been demonstrated.

No, it hasn't. All you guys have done is look at the evidence and suggest how it might be explained. Creationists have done the same. Both are scientific theories that attempt to make sense of the evidence.

Firstly you are saying here that there is no satisfactory proof of evolution for you because the only proof you will accept is the act of one "type" being demonstrated to change into another which, as I explained, takes millions of years. You have deliberately defined a "proof" that it is impossible for anyone to give.

And secondly, "God did it" is not a scientific theory. Fossil evidence is an unnecessary bonus in providing evidence for evolution, all we have to do is look at our DNA. To give one example, the DNA of apes is less than 2% different to our own, one of our chromosomes is identical to two of the chromosomes of apes fused together. According to yourself this 2% difference is apparently an insurmountable barrier but there is absolutely nothing to suggest that is the case. This 2% is just as susceptible to variation as any other part of our DNA. Evolution has withstood the rigours of scientific inquiry for 150 years whereas creationism has been debunked as junk science every single time it has tried to be taken seriously. This idea that there is some controversy over the validity of evolution is a myth propagated by creationists who simply won't accept that their "theory" has been debunked.

wolfsbane wrote: »

As above, I'm not saying it is impossible to walk from Cork to Donegal because you can't do it in a few minutes. Or that you can't micro-lite to the moon because you can't do it in the time I can to the next field.

That is begging the question. You assert there is no intrinsic limit - but you do not prove it.

Can you micro-lite to the Moon, given enough time?

I don't know what micro-lite-ing is but I'm assuming it's not rocket propulsion capable of escaping the earth's gravitational pull, which would mean the two situations are different because you are comparing something that is impossible to something that is simply a continuation of a process that you accept to exist. I am not "asserting that there is no intrinsic limit", you are asserting that there is one but you do not prove it. I have seen nothing to suggest that there is such a limit other than a declaration from creationists that there is one.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It depends on the truthfulness of the Witness. There are many liars out there.

How one knows the difference has been dealt with before, but I'm happy to discuss it if you wish.

To be honest if it's going to get long-winded I'd rather not. I'll just say right now that there is no way you will convince me that one guy's eye-witness account of a supernatural event is true and all others are false. No eye-witness account will ever convince me of the existence of the supernatural because I know how flawed human perception is

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Mad Hatter said:

Lots of unseen things are part of scientific theory. The Oort Cloud, for example. They may or may not be real, but they provide an explanation for observed phenomena.

Good thing I said "observed" and not "seen," then. This barrier has not been observed in any way - creationists just allege that it's there.

You guys allege speciation can carry primitive slime through many stages until it forms all the biosphere we observe today. But you have never observed it changing any organism to other than a variation of that organism - winged flies to wingless flies, for example. The burden of proof is on you, not us.

Who said anything about organisms?

Seriously, it so often seems that creationists get their whole understanding of evolution from watching Pokémon.

If you take an animal, and trace back its ancestry one generation at a time, you will never see much variation between parent and child, or between grandparent and grandchild, but the further you go back, the less things will look like what you started with. Go far enough and you will have a different species - but still you will never have any parent that looks significantly different from its child.

The testimony of an eye-witness is not worthless. We have that testimony from the only one who was there at the time. You may doubt His veracity, or our veracity in telling you about Him - that's your problem. But for us His testimony is priceless.

What you have is various sources, including your own mind, telling you about him, but you have no independent means of assessing whether any of it is true. The case of other religions, as Sam pointed out, is also difficult. If they're being lied to, then the liar is exceptionally good (and our minds are exceptionally good at lying to us) - but so good that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference either.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

That is begging the question. You assert there is no intrinsic limit - but you do not prove it.

Can you micro-lite to the Moon, given enough time?

There is no evidence for an intrinsic limit. It is not even suggested. Furthermore, the evidence (both fossil and molecular) rigorously fits what is predicted by Darwinian evolution. Evolution through natural selection is therefore rigorously affirmed.

MrPudding

wolfsbane wrote: »

Not sure what you are saying. What I'm saying is that there is a barrier for all speciation - change is only within kind.

I probably missed it in this monstrous thread but, can you explain what “kinds” are and give some examples and the rules for determining inclusion or exclusion in a kind.

MrP

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Mad Hatter said:

Lots of unseen things are part of scientific theory. The Oort Cloud, for example. They may or may not be real, but they provide an explanation for observed phenomena.

Yes but you have to have an observed phenomena. No one has ever observed an evolving species stopping at some unexplained "barrier". And the fossil record contradicts the idea that species stop evolving at some point.

You guys are just asserting this barrier exists based on a weird reading of the Bible.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But you have never observed it changing any organism to other than a variation of that organism - winged flies to wingless flies, for example.

You are just talking nonsense now

What would not be a variation of that organism?? A dog giving birth a cat would still be a variation of that organism since the cat would be a product of the dog's DNA plus mutation. It would never happen because it would require a huge amount of mutations to take place at the same time, but it still would be a variation of that organism

Do you understand what "organism" actually means?

And where does evolution ever say that the mutated off spring won't be a variation of the parent oragamisms? That is how evolution works, but over billions of years these variation build up so you go from single celled bacteria to complex multi-celled organisms like us.

Sam Vimes

MrPudding wrote: »

I probably missed it in this monstrous thread but, can you explain what “kinds” are and give some examples and the rules for determining inclusion or exclusion in a kind.

MrP

Yeah you've missed it. A "kind" is something like a dog or a fly or or horse. You can get different species of dog but apparently there's a barrier that prevents what we call a dog changing to something that would not be called a dog anymore. We've tried to explain that there are not two "kinds" of DNA and that the DNA that makes something a "dog" is variable in exactly the same way as the DNA that differentiates different species of dog but all we're getting in response is an assertion that there is a barrier of some kind to prevent this happening, presumably a part of the DNA strand which is fixed and not subject to genetic mutation. We haven't been told which part of the DNA strand this is, which characteristics are defined by this part of the strand that makes a "dog" a "dog" or anything else about the nature of this supposed barrier, just that it's there and that it prevents macro-evolution somehow.

Also, apparently the burden of proof is on us to prove that this barrier is not there even though it's so vaguely defined that we can't even know what it's supposed to be much less prove that it doesn't exist. The complete lack of evidence for any such barrier is completely irrelevant, someone has claimed it's there so it seems it's up to us to prove it's not

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...The quote in my sig has ALWAYS made it clear that Prof Gould WAS an Evolutionist

Of course it does because your misrepresenting what hes saying. It wouldn't do you any good to misrepresent a creationist now would it ?

... and it highlights the 'nagging problem' of absence of fossil intermediates that STILL continues to be a problem for a gradualistic (i.e. Darwinian) account of Evolution - and which Prof Gould tried to reconcile with his ideas on Punctuated Equilibrium/Evolution AKA 'The Hopeful Monster' Theory!!!!!

Which is not a question of evolution itself, was never meant to be a question of evolution itself and it made perfectly clear in the context of his writings that it is a problem WITHIN evolution, not a problem WITH evolution

The quote is valid and true quote from the man and it highlights the CONTINUING controversy within Evolution over the absence of intermediates ... which,of course, is what you would EXPECT if Creation is true!!!!

Which only proves you didn't read his paper or you are lying.

Your been completely dishonest and disrespectful of Prof Gould JC.

Its a miserable dirty little tactic that anyone should be ashamed of.

MrPudding

Ah, so "kinds" make as much sense as the rest of the rubbish they spout then...

MrP