Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Questions Creationists Never Answer
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 31 of 141 (240186)
09-03-2005 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by randman
09-03-2005 2:53 AM


Re: should be a rule
The problem with that definition of "kind" is that creationists often implicitly use another definition - one that CAN be identiifed now. THey define macro-evolution as "evolution between kinds" and claim that it has never been observed. For that we need a definition of "kind" that would allow us to tell if "macro-evolution" had occurred. Without such a definition the creatiniost claim is just dishonest obfuscation.
Are you aware of such a definition ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by randman, posted 09-03-2005 2:53 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by randman, posted 09-03-2005 3:32 AM PaulK has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 32 of 141 (240187)
09-03-2005 3:31 AM


I'll post it here, since it's on topic for this thread
Creationists don't offer possitive proof of creationism.
You want us to take your "theory" seriously, but you offer no evidence FOR your theory.
Evidence against other theories is not evidence for yours.
And, by the way, before you start. The Bible is NOT evidence.

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by randman, posted 09-03-2005 3:34 AM Nuggin has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 33 of 141 (240188)
09-03-2005 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by PaulK
09-03-2005 3:22 AM


Re: should be a rule
PaulK, I am not here to get into the whole issue of how the term "kind" is used by other people. It seems a pretty straighforward matter, and in fact there is considerable effort on-going to define what the kinds were in detail.
As far as the issue of macro-evolution, I have mainly heard that we have never observed evolution besides speciation within a fairly close resemblance, and not major morphological features emerging and such. It seems like a pretty reasonable claim to me, and attempting to dodge the claim because the classification of kinds or degrees of difference, imo, is a spurious argument by evos.
The evo argument should just consist of maintaining that such small changes, in their view, can add up to the necessary large changes. It seems to me that you are dodging just resting on that claim, and trying to get away from admitting the obvious, that such macro-evolution, however ill-defined, has nonetheless not been observed.
Why not just admit that?
When I hear evos claiming evolution is an observed fact, and I have heard that a lot over the years, because we see speciation, frankly, it has the opposite effect with me. It makes me think they are essentially dodging the truth and purposefully miseducating people and misrepresenting the argument.
Why not just say we haven't observed it yet because it takes more time than we have been observing, but we have observed smaller changes and speciation events and thus believe they can add up to the bigger macro-evolutionary changes?
What's wrong with simple honesty here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by PaulK, posted 09-03-2005 3:22 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Nuggin, posted 09-03-2005 3:48 AM randman has replied
 Message 38 by PaulK, posted 09-03-2005 3:53 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 34 of 141 (240189)
09-03-2005 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Nuggin
09-03-2005 3:31 AM


Re: I'll post it here, since it's on topic for this thread
Why are you diverting the thread topic here?
The OP falsely maligned creationists by saying they never define kinds and a couple of other points. Those points have now been refuted.
If you want to open a thread so people can defend creationism, please do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Nuggin, posted 09-03-2005 3:31 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Nuggin, posted 09-03-2005 3:45 AM randman has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 35 of 141 (240190)
09-03-2005 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by randman
09-03-2005 3:34 AM


Re: I'll post it here, since it's on topic for this thread
Why are you diverting the thread topic here?
The thread topic is "Questions Creationists Never Answer". that's what I am posting, and it's what's not being answered.
Dead on topic imo
The OP falsely maligned creationists
That may or may not be so, however what is true is that the OP is from 4 YEARS ago. I'm not even certain the originator even checks the board any more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by randman, posted 09-03-2005 3:34 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by randman, posted 09-03-2005 3:52 AM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 36 of 141 (240192)
09-03-2005 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by randman
09-03-2005 3:32 AM


Re: should be a rule
Why not just say we haven't observed it yet because it takes more time than we have been observing
Is your question, have we observed macro-evolution in the present, meaning in the last 50 years or so? Or is your question, have we observed evidence of macro-evolution having taken place?
And while you're at it, have we noticed any instances of creation? Any animals spontaneously appear out of thin air fully formed, unrelated to anything living or extinct?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by randman, posted 09-03-2005 3:32 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by randman, posted 09-03-2005 3:56 AM Nuggin has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 37 of 141 (240193)
09-03-2005 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Nuggin
09-03-2005 3:45 AM


Re: I'll post it here, since it's on topic for this thread
Nuggin, creationists offer positive proof, as you say, all the time. Of course, if I were to offer "positive proof", I would be derided since the word "proof" is used, and moreover derided for adding "positive" in front of it.
You, of course, like most evos can freely use such unscientific language because you are not held to any real standards by other evos for the most part, and in fact, evos have often insisted none of them talk of "positive proof" at all.
Moreover, I would probably be banned for being off-topic.
I will just say this. Your claim and the claim in the OP is unfounded and silly and ignorant, and basically shows you have never really listened to creationist arguments.
For me personally, I am not a defender of creationism except to defend aspects of it. Personally, I am not sure that the data supports any of the various models out there completely and do have some of my own ideas, and at times think they could be good discussion, but someone already posted some similar ideas on a proposed topic thread, and I posted a request that the thread be opened, but it never was.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Nuggin, posted 09-03-2005 3:45 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Nuggin, posted 09-03-2005 3:59 AM randman has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 38 of 141 (240194)
09-03-2005 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by randman
09-03-2005 3:32 AM


Re: should be a rule
I would think that if there were another definition used by creationists, and if creationists refuse to give it then it would be directly relevant to the discussion.
And exactly what issue am I suppsoed to be dodging ? My post is on the issue of the creastionist definition of "kind". You refuse to discuss that and try to change the subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by randman, posted 09-03-2005 3:32 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by randman, posted 09-03-2005 4:03 AM PaulK has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 39 of 141 (240195)
09-03-2005 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Nuggin
09-03-2005 3:48 AM


Re: should be a rule
The answer is have we observed macro-evolution and not evidence interpreted to indicate macro-evolution "must have" occurred.
On the 2nd question, I have never heard any creationists claim that creatures are still being created. Nonetheless, we could have observed a species appearing out of nothing, but had someone observed that, most likely they would not be believed, and thus I really cannot say on that one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Nuggin, posted 09-03-2005 3:48 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by PaulK, posted 09-03-2005 4:03 AM randman has not replied
 Message 43 by Nuggin, posted 09-03-2005 4:04 AM randman has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 40 of 141 (240197)
09-03-2005 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by randman
09-03-2005 3:52 AM


Re: I'll post it here, since it's on topic for this thread
Okay, let me rephrase for you then.
Can you offer any evidence which supports the theory of creationism, instead of offering critisism of ToE?
You say that lots of creationists have done it, but not here. Certainly you aren't offering any up.
And as for your, "You haven't tried hard enough to find it" argument, that's just laughable. You've been confronted time and time again with evidence from Evos only to completely ignore them or call them "silly".
If you have evidence, bring it. If you don't, stop trying to present your theory as having any sort of equal footing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by randman, posted 09-03-2005 3:52 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by randman, posted 09-03-2005 4:05 AM Nuggin has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 41 of 141 (240199)
09-03-2005 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by PaulK
09-03-2005 3:53 AM


Re: should be a rule
You seem to be suggesting that it is an improper claim to insist we have not observed macro-evolution.
As far as the creationist claims you cite, I have only your word for it. I really don't think creationists are offering a new definition for kind. If they use the expression you cite, it seems pretty clear what they are talking about. They are saying we haven't observed something like a cat producing a dog. That may seem wierd and upsetting to you, but is a perfectly normal statement even if it is difficult to define the various types of kinds there were.
I think the distinquishing feature of kinds involves being able to reproduce with the idea that all groups of species stemmed from various species that could each reproduce within itself but not with others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by PaulK, posted 09-03-2005 3:53 AM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 42 of 141 (240200)
09-03-2005 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by randman
09-03-2005 3:56 AM


Re: should be a rule
In provide an on-topic answer to your question, we don;t know if that sort of macro-evolkution has been observed because creationists won't gice the relevant definition of "kind".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by randman, posted 09-03-2005 3:56 AM randman has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 43 of 141 (240201)
09-03-2005 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by randman
09-03-2005 3:56 AM


Re: should be a rule
I won't speak for scientists studying bacteria or fruit flies, etc. But, I'm perfectly willing to admit that we haven't seen any large animal macro-evolution in the last 100 years.
I'm pretty sure the ToE doesn't call for it.
However, I would suggest that both Creationism and ID would call for it. So, it looks like you've just disproved your own theory.
As for part 2, you are saying that no one has witnessed an animal being created. I accept that (since it never happened), but wonder, without any sort of evidence from the fossil record, without any mechanism for this process taking place, without any observations of the process actually having taken place. Exactly what the hell are teachers supposed to teach?
"Class, today we're going to discuss the theory of something that never happened, has never been witnessed and for which there is no evidence. Any questions? Great, next topic."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by randman, posted 09-03-2005 3:56 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 44 of 141 (240202)
09-03-2005 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Nuggin
09-03-2005 3:59 AM


Re: I'll post it here, since it's on topic for this thread
Nuggin to present a theory of creationism on this thread, especially my ideas since they involve physics, would probably get me banned.
You are wrong to claim that somehow I don't answer in detail even charges or points raised by evos. There is no evidence from evos that I have not refuted fairly well, imo. You just don't like the refutations of evo points because of bias.
Can you offer any evidence which supports the theory of creationism, instead of offering critisism of ToE?
Edit to add a comment on your question. Let's just pretend for a minute that no such thing as creationism exists, Ok? Would the criticisms of ToE be acceptable to you, or is it a matter of faith with you that it is wrong to criticize ToE? Is it a matter of faith with you that unless someone accepts ToE, they are not reasonable and therefore their critiques are unacceptable?
This message has been edited by randman, 09-03-2005 04:12 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Nuggin, posted 09-03-2005 3:59 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Nuggin, posted 09-03-2005 4:07 AM randman has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 45 of 141 (240203)
09-03-2005 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by randman
09-03-2005 4:05 AM


Re: I'll post it here, since it's on topic for this thread
... still waiting for your creationist evidence...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by randman, posted 09-03-2005 4:05 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by randman, posted 09-03-2005 4:13 AM Nuggin has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024