Questions Creationists Never Answer

There should be a rule that evos that take up the false argument on kinds should have to be ridiculed for it. I have defined kinds here as have others, and there is a clear-cut definition of kinds.But what's funny is that evos sometimes have such a hard time defining "species" that there have been threads suggesting we move away from defining species.Any evo making the false argument that "kinds" is not defined is either ignorant or a hypocrite, imo. Bariminology is clearly the study of kinds, and the term itself is well-defined. To pretend otherwise is absurd, and frankly it's a waste of time to even discuss the issue with evos if they are going to deny basic facts.We observe "kinds" just as much as we observe "species." They are both labels to describe a set of characteristics, and both can be problematic at times. We need to get past the pseudo-charges of pretending that creationists who are devoting an intense amount of research into baraminology have not or are not addressing the issue of what is a kind and defining the kinds out there.The issue should be on the data itself, and seeing if the ideas have merit.

Or this is merely a fudged claim like Haeckel's or the subsequent unproven claim of a phylotypic stage.I am not asserting you are necessarily wrong, just that there is ample reason, imo, to be suspicious of evo claims concerning the data. Personally, I have not researched this claim, but unless you can show where critics of evolution admit the data says what evos say it does, I am not sure I would beleive the claims.How do we know this is accurate? And that the data is not selectively presented?

The same difficulties in determining "kinds" exist for determining phylogeny, but I don't see you insisting phylogeny is pseudo-science. Created kind - WikipediaA kind is one of the theorized first created life forms of which all life evolved into today. As such, we should expect to see, in general, though not necessarily, groups of species that are similar in many ways and often able to reproduce though not necessarily so that were descended from the original kind.Along with that, we should expect to see fossil evidence of this evolution, such as horses or "horse-like creatures" developing into various other horses, but should expect to see large "gaps" to use evolutionary terminology between the different kinds, and frankly imo, this is exactly what we see.Personally, I am not a YECer, but I find some of their arguments have merit.This message has been edited by randman, 09-03-2005 02:55 AM

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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

Why?I feel no need at all to explain what creationists believe and their evidence. If you want to be educated, take the time to educate yourself.But let me ask you a 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?

That seems to suggest you believe criticisms of ToE should come in the form of "questions."Gimme a break. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Your's is less factual than most, it seems. Only if the claims are made within the evo paradigm. All others are essentially prohibited a priori because evos are not willing to consider ID or creationism as science, and anyone daring to publish an ID paper is hounded. We've gone over this before. Occasionally an evo will admit they don't believe any ID or creationist paper should be printed in peer-review literature, but mostly you guys deny what most of the rest of America sees plainly about what's going on.It's sort of pathetic you resort to lies but that's what I have come to expect. It'd be better if you would honestly listen to and discuss your critics' points, but like most evos I have run across, you'd rather lob false accusations.\Btw, the following link contains some data that you claim does not exist.http://www.s8int.com/dinolit1.htmlThis message has been edited by randman, 09-03-2005 04:43 AMThis message has been edited by randman, 09-03-2005 04:53 AM

For someone who claims to want to discuss data, you present and discuss none, nor respond to the data and link I have posted.very telling...

just responding in kind...

Numerous accurate depictions of dinosaurs by people who should never have seen a dinosaur is dismissed by you with a waive of the hand, eh?

You and Shraf have a different opinion on "scholarly sources" being willing within the evo camp to discuss evidence that severely contradicts evo paradigms.As far as the web-site, the data is the data, period. Pictures, written accounts, etc,...are no less real just because a web-site dedicated to the anomalous or strange stuff publishes them.Also, modern science often has a difficult time reconstructing dinosaurs accurately from fossils, and there are often quite a few mistakes. The argument that ancient people just accurately created reproductions based on old fossils and then let their imagination get carried away just doesn't hold water. It's a nice try, but doesn't work because it isn't logical.The question is why are there numerous reports, written accounts, drawings on pottery and elsewhere of quite specific anatomical details matching so precisely with what we know of many dinosaurs.