Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Clades and Kinds
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 14 of 143 (530898)
10-15-2009 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Meldinoor
10-15-2009 4:34 AM


Re: Some clarification
Hi Meldinoor,
Meldinoor writes:
The point of the thread, which may not have been perfectly clear in the OP is that the Creationist strawman that evolution expects speciation across clade boundaries is false.
Explain please if these 4 things are true.
1. A clade is a group having a common ancestor.
2. There is more than one clade.
3. Those clades have boundary's specition don't cross.
4. Creationist believe those boundaries have to be crossed if evolution is true.
How we can have all the life forms on earth we do today when we started with one life form as a common ancestor, without those boundaries being crossed?
After reading this thread I think I am beginning to understand my problem with understanding many things discussed at EvC.
I have no idea what other creationist so call believe.
I simply believe God created everything we see today. Simple statement. Not really.
The horse and zebra is what opened my eyes. You see I believe God created the horse. I also believe God created the zebra. I believe the horses have speciated especially with the help of man and there are many different species of horses.
So to me there would be a horse kind and a zebra kind, etc.
There would be an alligator kind and a crocodile kind, etc.
There would be a bluejay kind and there would be a sparrow kind, etc.
There would be a human kind, an Ape kind, a chimpanzee kind, etc.
Now if creationist want to reduce them down to get a smaller number to be on the ark that is their problem not mine.
Hopefully this will give insight to those here as to my beliefs and the reason I argue like I do. Like the argument about the bacteria, it makes no difference how much they change as long as they are bacteria macro evolution has not happened.
I think the proper word is transmutation.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Meldinoor, posted 10-15-2009 4:34 AM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-15-2009 1:32 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 18 by Blzebub, posted 10-15-2009 2:31 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 28 by Meldinoor, posted 10-15-2009 5:36 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 48 of 143 (531159)
10-16-2009 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Meldinoor
10-15-2009 5:36 PM


Re: Nested clades
Hi Meldinoor,
Meldinoor writes:
Yes. This is true by definition. My grandmother and all of her descendants constitute a kind of clade that includes me. Now, if my family was a different species from yours, such that my descendants could not interbreed with yours, it is impossible for any of my descendants to join your family, to cross the clade boundary.
Are there any humans that can not interbreed and produce offspring?
After my number 4 there was a question you did not answer.
Rephrased: How can we have all the life forms on earth we do today when we started with one life form as a common ancestor, without those boundaries being crossed?
Meldinoor writes:
I think the above quote from Peg will do as an example.
Only if horses and ass's are the same kind.
If God created an ass kind and He created a horse kind a mule proves evolution can not take place.
Meldinoor writes:
Do you understand what I mean when I say that equines will always be equines,
I understand what you are saying which is what evolution teaches.
But since I believe God created all the different kinds of animals and He did not have an equine kind that horses, ass's, and zebras belonged too, your statement is meaningless.
Meldinoor writes:
Could you define macroevolution please?
A ten pound lead bar becoming a 13 1/3 pound bar of pure gold.
Your example from Message 1 in which you say:
Meldinoor writes:
So, hypothetically, if the descendants of cattle should one day grow wings, large brains with telepathic abilities, and develop a spacefaring culture that ruled the galaxy, despite looking completely different, they would be of the same "kind" and will have gained their amazing adaptations entirely through microevolution.
If the front legs of the cattle were to grow into wings with feathers, their body grow streamline for flight with feathers, their hind legs grow to the point they would support their body weight with feet that could perch on a tree limb, all their insides change to those of a bird necessary for flight, them stop carrying their young inside, and laying eggs to produce their offspring you would have macro evolution.
You would have one critter (a cow) become a totally different critter (a bird).
To come from a single cell life form to all the extinct life forms and the living life forms we have today that is what had to happen millions of times if evolution occurred.
Meldinoor writes:
Do you believe bacteria constitute a single kind? (If they are, then cladistically you might as well make humans and mushrooms the same kind)
Well God made kinds. Clades are made by man. So a bacteria, humans, mushrooms, cattle, horses, dogs, lions, tigers, elephants, rinos, fish, whales, apes, and monkeys are not the same kind.
How many different kinds of life forms did God create? He did not tell us. He only told us He created them which includes all of them. Be it 50 million, 100 million or even in the billions.
God did not create one or a few life forms as Darwin stated and then all life forms evolve from those few into what we have today.
God created all life forms we have today, as well as all those which are extinct.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Meldinoor, posted 10-15-2009 5:36 PM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-16-2009 11:12 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 65 by Meldinoor, posted 10-16-2009 5:01 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 91 by bluescat48, posted 10-19-2009 4:12 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 50 of 143 (531172)
10-16-2009 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Meldinoor
10-16-2009 12:15 AM


Re: Non Agreement
Hi Meldinoor,
Meldinoor writes:
1. Kinds can be defined as clades on some level
There can be no agreement by a Bible believing litteralist that Biblical kinds can be defined as clades according to the way clades have been described in this thread.
Meldinoor writes:
2. Neither creationists nor evolutionists expect clade boundaries to be crossed. Both agree that equines will remain equines, dogs will remain dogs, and primates will remain primates.
Evolutionist can believe anything they desire to believe.
No Bible believing litteralist believes that one kind can become another kind.
Meldinoor writes:
3. Therefore, the common creationist argument that the fact that animals never leave their clades (dogs will be dogs, equines will be equines, etc) is somehow supposed to disprove evolution is a strawman, and should never again be used by anyone. Creationists who use this argument, like Kent Hovind, are either being intentionally misleading or are ignorant of how evolution and cladistics works.
Most evolutionist believe all life forms evolved from one life form that existed. No real clue as to how it began to exist just faith that it did because we are here.
This Bible believing litteralist believes that God created all the different kinds of life forms that are now extinct and all that are living today. God created them in His eternity.
So the strawman exists because man has made up his form of order of life forms. Which does not match God's.
In other words evolutionist are ignorant of how God created the different kinds. I would put a lot of religionist in this catagory also.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Meldinoor, posted 10-16-2009 12:15 AM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Coyote, posted 10-16-2009 1:16 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 66 by Meldinoor, posted 10-16-2009 5:09 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 51 of 143 (531174)
10-16-2009 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Dr Jack
10-16-2009 4:50 AM


Re: Lineage is biology; biology is lineage.
Hi Jack,
Mr Jack writes:
The two are inseperable. You cannot understand the biology of an organism without understanding its lineage and relationships to other organisms.
If that statement is true, how can any evolutionist understand anything about any creature as he does not know how life began to exist?
If you do not know how something began to exist, how can you know the linage of it?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Dr Jack, posted 10-16-2009 4:50 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-16-2009 11:52 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 55 by Dr Jack, posted 10-16-2009 12:15 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 53 of 143 (531177)
10-16-2009 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by New Cat's Eye
10-16-2009 11:12 AM


Re: Nested clades
Hi CS,
Christian Scientist writes:
Because the boundaries didn't exist to be crossed. The boundaries, themselves, emerged as complexity increased and the clades formed.
The first life form formed a clade.
The boundry existed.
That life form could never cease to be that kind of life form.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-16-2009 11:12 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-16-2009 12:02 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 68 of 143 (531265)
10-16-2009 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Meldinoor
10-16-2009 5:09 PM


Re: Non Agreement
Hi Meldinoor,
Meldinoor writes:
Aha. So all members of a kind today do not share a common ancestor on the ark. I guess Bible believing literalists think the flood did not destroy all the rest of the world then.
Its a good thing I don't get to grade you on your reading skills.
Just in case you was reading too fast I will restate my position
ICANT'S position is that every living kind that is present today was on the ark.
Meldinoor writes:
Yes, yes, young apprentice. Continue to agree with evolutionists and to shun mainstream creationist views and together we can rule this forum as evolutionist and evolutionist. Join us! Mohahahahahaha!!!
Young I wish, but at 70 I sure don't feel young.
As far as a Bible litteralist there are none I know that are my equal, they probably exist though.
Buzzsaw would be the closest and he is not around much anymore.
I am old earth creation. As in a lot older than science believes it to be today. Some of the expanding then crunch then expanding hypothesis's get close.
ICANT'S position is that the universe has always existed infinitely in all directions in some form.
Do I care what mainstream creationist so called believe and preach?
Not in the least. I don't have to answer to God for what they teach.
I just wish they would teach what the Bible says. Instead of their interpertation of what the Bible says.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Meldinoor, posted 10-16-2009 5:09 PM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Meldinoor, posted 10-16-2009 6:16 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 72 by Coyote, posted 10-16-2009 7:32 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 70 of 143 (531277)
10-16-2009 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Meldinoor
10-16-2009 5:01 PM


Re: Nested clades
Hi Meldinoor,
Meldinoor writes:
Even if you could prove that God created life 6000 years ago, much like it is today, you still wouldn't have shown that evolution doesn't work from that point on.
Well the problem there is I don't think or believe God created all life 6,000 years ago.
I don't think or believe God created mankind, plants, animals and birds 6,000 years ago.
I do believe God created modern man some 6,000+ years ago. The only other creature created at the same time was whales.
Meldinoor writes:
Do you, or do you not believe that a few representatives of each kind was aboard the ark?
No
I believe all kinds were on the ark.
Meldinoor writes:
Actually, what you are describing is magic. If you think this is an example of biological evolution, then you really don't know enough to participate in this thread. Fortunately, I don't think you're being ignorant, you just decided not to take the question seriously.
What I described would be the evolution of metal comparing it to biological evolution.
Lead to gold would be called transmutation. The lead ceasing to be one thing and becoming something competely different.
Meldinoor writes:
Well, that doesn't happen either. Fish and humans are not "totally different". They share a lot of traits.
They were created by the same entity out of the same materials therefore they should have a lot of things similar.
Meldinoor writes:
ICANT writes:
If the front legs of the cattle were to grow into wings with feathers, their body grow streamline for flight with feathers, their hind legs grow to the point they would support their body weight with feet that could perch on a tree limb, all their insides change to those of a bird necessary for flight, them stop carrying their young inside, and laying eggs to produce their offspring you would have macro evolution.
Good. Given your definitions of macro-evolution, even evolutionists will agree that it doesn't happen.
I wonder:
Scientists believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
Source
Dinosaurs can evolve into birds but cows could not evolve into birds.
Why is that?
If you can't believe its possible for cow's to evolve into birds why do you believe dinosaurs evolved into birds?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Meldinoor, posted 10-16-2009 5:01 PM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Meldinoor, posted 10-16-2009 7:12 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 10-16-2009 8:55 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 79 of 143 (531372)
10-17-2009 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by RAZD
10-16-2009 8:55 PM


Re: Nested clades
Hi RAZD,
You feeling chipper these days?
RAZD writes:
What cows could evolve into would be something analogous to a bird, they could become small (like your midget horse?) and then grow a membrane like a flying squirrel, and then take the step to be similar to a bat.
Meldinoor in Message 28 ask me for my definition of macro evolution.
I gave my answer in Message 48.
Meldinoor restates my definition and makes the statement it could never happen in Message 65
Let's give it one more try:
Could you give me your definition of macro-evolution please?
ICANT writes:
If the front legs of the cattle were to grow into wings with feathers, their body grow streamline for flight with feathers, their hind legs grow to the point they would support their body weight with feet that could perch on a tree limb, all their insides change to those of a bird necessary for flight, them stop carrying their young inside, and laying eggs to produce their offspring you would have macro evolution.
Good. Given your definitions of macro-evolution, even evolutionists will agree that it doesn't happen.
Now according to the OP these cows could not be the little flying cows you present.
They would have to be very large. They would have larger brains than a normal cow. They would have telepathic abilities, and develop a spacefaring culture that ruled the galaxy. So they would have to evolve far beyond what you proposed.
Here is the entire part of the message in the OP I was addressing.
Meldinoor writes:
So, hypothetically, if the descendants of cattle should one day grow wings, large brains with telepathic abilities, and develop a spacefaring culture that ruled the galaxy, despite looking completely different, they would be of the same "kind" and will have gained their amazing adaptations entirely through microevolution.
Now, would anyone like to tell me why I'm wrong? Or perhaps someone would like to propose an alternative definition of "kind"?
Meldinoor stated they would be the same kind as they had gained their amazing adaptations entirely through microevolution.
He then asks anyone to tell him why he is wrong.
He admits he is wrong in Message 65 when he says:
"Good. Given your definitions of macro-evolution, even evolutionists will agree that it doesn't happen."
So the only thing left to do is give a definition of Bible "kind".
I tried to do so by stating I believed every kind was on the ark. Nobody seems to understand what I was saying.
I will try to be specific and see if I can explain.
I believe there was at least a pair of Horses, ass's, and zebras on the ark.
Horses and ass's have been domesticated since they came off the ark.
Nobody has ever been able to truly domesticate the zebra.
So there was a Horse kind, a ass kind and a zebra kind on the ark.
There was not just a pair of something from which all three divided from.
All the other creatures would have been the same.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 10-16-2009 8:55 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by lyx2no, posted 10-17-2009 12:41 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 81 by Dr Jack, posted 10-17-2009 1:41 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 82 by Meldinoor, posted 10-17-2009 5:54 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 83 by Blue Jay, posted 10-18-2009 12:16 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 102 by RAZD, posted 10-20-2009 7:48 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 87 of 143 (531711)
10-19-2009 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Blue Jay
10-18-2009 12:16 PM


Re: Nested clades
Hi jay,
Bluejay writes:
ICANT writes:
A ten pound lead bar becoming a 13 1/3 pound bar of pure gold.
Message 48
ICANT writes:
If the front legs of the cattle were to grow into wings with feathers, their body grow streamline for flight with feathers, their hind legs grow to the point they would support their body weight with feet that could perch on a tree limb, all their insides change to those of a bird necessary for flight, them stop carrying their young inside, and laying eggs to produce their offspring you would have macro evolution.
Message 48
A definition is supposed to be useful in classifying a number of different examples. Therefore, a definition has to be non-specific.
Those are two examples of transmutation which macro evolution is.
I stated in Message 14:
Hopefully this will give insight to those here as to my beliefs and the reason I argue like I do. Like the argument about the bacteria, it makes no difference how much they change as long as they are bacteria macro evolution has not happened.
I think the proper word is transmutation.
Transmutation is when one thing ceases to be that thing and becomes a different thing.
In the message you are responding to immediately after my two examples I stated:
You would have one critter (a cow) become a totally different critter (a bird).
So let me see if I can clear it up for you,
Macro evolution is when one kind of critter becomes another kind of a critter.
An example would be a dog kind evolving into a horse kind.
Kind is all the different creatures God created.
Example horse kind, zebra kind, ass kind.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Blue Jay, posted 10-18-2009 12:16 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by JonF, posted 10-19-2009 1:47 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 89 by Coragyps, posted 10-19-2009 2:27 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 94 by RAZD, posted 10-19-2009 8:53 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 96 by Blue Jay, posted 10-20-2009 12:06 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 92 of 143 (531777)
10-19-2009 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by JonF
10-19-2009 1:47 PM


Re: Nested clades
Hi Jon,
JonF writes:
IOW, how do you assign two arbitrarily chosen organisms to the category "one kind of critter"
You don't.
A kind is made up of one kind of critter not two kinds.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by JonF, posted 10-19-2009 1:47 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Coyote, posted 10-19-2009 8:51 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 95 by Blue Jay, posted 10-20-2009 12:00 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 100 by Meldinoor, posted 10-20-2009 3:20 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 97 of 143 (531797)
10-20-2009 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Blue Jay
10-20-2009 12:06 AM


Re: Nested clades
Hi jay,
Bluejay writes:
Do you recognize that this is your opponents' position?
I don't have any opponents unless it is the fellow with the PHD that Coyote wrote about. He and I could get into a serious discussion of the Bible.
The posters here are not my opponents. They are a group that are convinced the Theory of Evolution is correct. Nothing I say or do can ever change their mind it is made up. They are like the fellow that told me concerning his religion. "I know what I believe and that settles it."
But yes I realize that no evolutionist here believes that one critter had to become another critter. But that we just started out as a single cell life form that by chance began to exist and then over quintillion quintillion quintillion quintillions of small changes the most complex piece of machinery began to exist, a human. There is no scientific verifiable evidence of such ever taking place. So it is just in the mind of the believer.
I happen to believe God created every creature that has ever existed, those that are extinct and those living today. He called those creatures kinds. He did not stop creating kinds of creatures until 6,000+ years ago.
Kind is not a scientific term and only means kind. So God created every kind of creature. If you can name it He created it. Now have fun with that one.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Blue Jay, posted 10-20-2009 12:06 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Meldinoor, posted 10-20-2009 3:55 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 103 by Blue Jay, posted 10-20-2009 9:47 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 98 of 143 (531800)
10-20-2009 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by bluescat48
10-19-2009 4:12 PM


Re: Nested clades
Hi cat,
bluescat48 writes:
So how are these kinds?
Each of those creatures are a kind.
You want to lump a bunch of stuff into a pile and give it a name.
God just called each thing a kind.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by bluescat48, posted 10-19-2009 4:12 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by bluescat48, posted 10-20-2009 11:02 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 105 of 143 (531899)
10-20-2009 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Meldinoor
10-20-2009 3:55 AM


Re: Nested clades
Hi Meldinoor,
Meldinoor writes:
ICANT, I realize it might be hard for you to define a kind.
I don't think it is hard to define. It is just hard for you to grasp the definition.
KIND, n.
Race; generic class; as in mankind or humankind.
KIND, a.
Disposed to do good to others.
This is the way the word was defined when it was used in the KJV of the Bible in 1611.
The one used in Genesis is a noun so it would mean there is:
A mankind, a horse kind, a zebra kind, a ass kind, a cow kind, a tiger kind, a lion kind etc.
Melindoor writes:
When birds evolved from ancestral archosaurs there was never a point when they were neither archosaurs nor birds.
All the pictures I find of an archosaurs, looks like a bunch of birds that walk around in my yard every day eating the grubs out of my grass.
Now how you get from a bi-ped bird creature to a 4 leged crocodilians is kinda hard to figure out.
Meldinoor writes:
This is a very simple concept, and furthermore, it doesn't prove evolution, nor is it evidence against your personal beliefs in YEC.
I am not YEC.
Melindoor writes:
You only have to understand how evolution works, and unlearn how it doesn't.
Why do I have to understand how we evolved from a single cell life form to mankind?
When it never happened.
The first thing I would have to have is evidence that the first life form began to exist and was produced by a non life form. Which is a scientific impossibility, which has been verified over the past 150 years.
If you don't know how something began to exist there is no way you can figure out how it got from there to here.
You may believe (have faith) that you know but that is a long way from scientific evidence.
If you have scientific, verifiable, reproducable evidence how mankind evolved from a non life form then present it.
Now you can trot out the old evolution does not address abiogenesis argument if you want to. Just don't expect me to accept that modification to the early theory. Darwin had an origin for the life he thought evolved.
Without life there is nothing to evolve.
Meldinoor writes:
Only then can you decide whether you want to continue rejecting it.
You want me to accept it.
Yet it is a fact non life can not produce life.
It is a fact that life produces life and is verified 264 times per minute by humans around the world.
If only life can produce life then the first life on earth had to be produced by a life form.
Therefore evolution from a non life form to mankind could never happened.
I'm sorry I just don't have enough faith to believe that it did.
Your faith is greater than mine.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Meldinoor, posted 10-20-2009 3:55 AM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Modulous, posted 10-20-2009 1:20 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 137 by Meldinoor, posted 10-21-2009 1:28 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 106 of 143 (531910)
10-20-2009 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by RAZD
10-20-2009 7:48 AM


Re: Nested clades
Hi RAZD,
Sorry about the complications.
RAZD writes:
OR to admit that your definition of macro-evolution is not the way it is used within the field of biology in general, or the the field of evolution in specific.
I well know my definition of macro evolution is not, can not, will never be accepted in the field of evolution. As Meldinoor said no one would believe macro evolution ever occurred.
You have a non life form which produces a life form. That single cell life form produces a man, and every other life form on the earth. All these variations of life forms were created by very small changes over 3.8 billion years.
There is a problem with that as the fossil record has things appearing all of a sudden fully developed.
Your source states:
It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read.
There is no scientific verifiable reproducible evidence for macroevolution.
To believe it happened, macroevolution has to be accepted by faith as there is no evidence, only belief.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by RAZD, posted 10-20-2009 7:48 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Perdition, posted 10-20-2009 2:31 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 134 by RAZD, posted 10-20-2009 10:14 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 107 of 143 (531913)
10-20-2009 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Blue Jay
10-20-2009 9:47 AM


Re: Nested clades
Hi jay,
Bluejay writes:
Having recognized this, do you now agree that a lead bar turning into a gold bar is not an appropriate analogy for biological evolution?
It is a perfect example of one thing becoming a different thing. The problem is there is no scientific way to accomplish such a feat. It was tried many times.
Just as there is no way to show macroevolution ever occurred. There is no scientific verifiable reproducible evidence for macroevolution.
If there is no evidence the only way you can believe it happened is by faith.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Blue Jay, posted 10-20-2009 9:47 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by ZenMonkey, posted 10-20-2009 3:16 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 126 by Blue Jay, posted 10-20-2009 7:30 PM ICANT 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