What i can't understand about evolution....

quote:

---

a kind as in a species that can reproduce together.

​

eg, various breeds of chickens can reproduce together, but a chicken and a duck cannot, therefore they are different 'kinds' or 'species'

​

im sure i have explained this previously.

---

If you are committed to this definition, then the game is over and your position is defeated. The evolution of new species, that are incapable of interbreeding with the parent species, has been observed to occur in nature, and in a laboratory setting as well. Thus, evolution beyond "kind" is a well-known, observed phenomenon.This is where you back track, and try to redefine "kind" so as to preserve your preconceived notion, despite the evidence.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

believe it or not, its only been in the last day or two that i've come to realize you all mean when you use the term 'creationist'. I thought i was a creationist, but now i realise that term is reserved for those who adhere to the young earth theories.

---

In fact, you are incorrect. Anyone who attempts to invoke anything other than natural means to explain the development of life on this planet because they believe the ToE is insufficient is a creationist. This includes YECs, OECs, the transitional species cdesign proponentist, and the latest crop, intelligent design theorists. They all use the same basic playbook, with slight alterations in terminology.

quote:

---

but darwinian evolution and the spontaneous generation of life on this planet is not logical to me either, not in the slightest.

---

If you were to simply state that you haven't studied enough of it to understand it and, thus, couldn't express an opinion, I'd be willing to let it go at that. However, you go beyond that. You quote creos of every stripe, swallowing the distortions and lies that they liberally spoon out. You challenge scientists who've spent their entire careers studying the ToE, making arguments in the process that do nothing so much as they show how little you know about the subject.I do appreciate you providing your sources. I'm going to have to add the Origins book to my reading list, I'm not familiar with it. I am familiar, however, with Denton's book. It's really nothing more than typical creo ramblings. You can find a more detailed discussion of it here.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Here is a rather extensive discussion of observed speciation instances.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

One question, Buz. Do you believe the ToE adequately explains the development of life on Earth? If not, why not?Okay, I guess that's two questions.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

I see nothing in the ToE which violates my version of creationism.

---

While this may be interesting, it's not an answer to the question I asked.Assuming that by this statement you meant to say that you believe that the ToE does adequately explain the diversity of life, and that that was the process that a supreme being used to create life, then I would refer to you as a theistic evolutionist. I'm aware that some, Jar included, use the term "creationist" to refer to the concept that a supreme being created life on Earth through the mechanism of evolution. It's my position that to use the term in that way is to create confusion. The generally accepted usage of "creationist" is someone who disputes the the ability of the ToE to explain the diversity of life on Earth. While I acknowledge that some others may have different meanings attached to the term, that fact does not mean that my usage is wrong.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

One gets the feeling that this comprehensional wall has nothing to do with creationist comprehension skills and everything to do with not wanting to give up a cherished notion about evolution, as well as one of their most powerful talking points when proselytizing against evolution. They don't want to give up being able to say, "If you believe in evolution then you don't believe God created the first life, you don't believe in Adam and Eve, you don't believe in the flood, and you don't believe in the Bible as the word of God."

---

While all of this is true, I think there's another part to it that you're overlooking. You can find it on almost any creo website, and just about every creo who's posted here has said it at one time or another. They truly and sincerely believe that evilutionist scientists have, as part of their agenda, a plan to disprove the existence of a supreme being. Proving that life evolved would be insufficient to accomplish that; it's also necessary to prove that life began without supernatural assistance. The creo linking of abiogenesis and evolution flows quite naturally from the creo tenet that science in general and evilutionists in particular are dedicated to proving there is no god.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

So long as abiogenesis is un-replicable and mysterious, creationists will be able to sow doubts by forcing the two topics into one.

---

Yes, that's a very important part of it, too. Given the doubts they've been able to raise in the mind of the public about evolution, where the evidence is overwhelming, it's even easier to throw dust in the air and create confusion where the evidence is more speculative, although not nearly as speculative as creos make it out to be.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

To the fundamentalist who has invested a special authority in the literal words (as opposed to the general ideas) of the Bible, and who sees human existence as a "great controversy" *, every inch of the doctrinal landscape must be contested.

---

And the screwiest part of all of this is that most people don't buy into the literalist biblical arguments, but they're still swayed by the nonsense that creos spin. I'm afraid that this speaks volumes about the quality of science education in this country. And what it says isn't very flattering.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat