Biological classification vs 'Kind'

I recall an article I read regarding phasmatodea. Scientists did directly observe a "kind" becoming a new "kind" - the new "kind" from the "old kind" could not breed with each other.I will post the article when I find it. I read it in a Danish newspaper, so it might take a little time.

I have no particular interest in phasmatodea so I did not know how they breed, except from now since you mentioned it (and I probably should look it up too)
I'm still searching for the article. Hard to find xD

Sounds like that thing. Thx, I had trouble to figure out how to search for such thing.Wouldn't that be a good way to counter-argue a person like Peg (despite the fact that she will not acknowledge anything that contradicts what she says) or is it not a proper argument because of the way they "breed"? I have very little knowledge about insects in general

Oh I get it. Stupid me. I should also know that a bat is bird. God grant me knowledge through the bible! Never in contradiction with science!Lev 11:13-19/sarcasm

quote:

---

Before accepting the naturalistic approach to the origin of life we should have some good evidence that it is a better assumption than the supernatural one humanity has traditionally assumed.

---

Science is a method to describe the natural world through natural processes. This also means that the supernatural is per definition not science.If you put the variable "God" into an equation you can get any result because God is for some reason not bound to nature and are therefore supernatural. Despite it might be true God exists it is not science. I do not think I am wrong when I say this (but I might be); if we assume we have proved the existence of God with science; he affirm his existence and proves he is the creator. That should not be a problem for a God and then the great question.... is God considered to be an accepted variable for the scientific method? Not really, since he is supernatural.God can make any outcome, we might be able to explain everything in the universe with God as the variable and some phenomena might be necessary to explain with God as the variable. However, if we need God to explain such thing it is no longer science since it is not a description of the NATURAL world, nor does it use NATURAL processes solely. To repeat; science is a method to describe the natural world through natural processes.I understand why creationists try to search for God with the scientific method and it would definitely be interesting if they proved the existence of God. Personally, I do not think they will ever prove God simply because I do not consider it likely that God(s) exists. It is probably just another natural phenomenon (Occam’s Razor).I hope you can see the problem with God as variable; people will start screaming out loud GOD DID IT THIS AND THAT, which you probably have encountered a lot of times, both as arguments and as parody. Again, it might be true in some situations, but then it is not science. If the above example happened there might be formed a new field closely related to the scientific method, but it is not strictly science as we define it today.Furthermore, the scientific community world wide is during pretty well in explaining the natural world with natural processes. Of course it happens a lot of time that when scientists come up with an answer we become aware of new things that raise a new series of question. It is not like we are at the edge of the knowledge wall, but with the knowledge the scientific method has provided with is quite useful and we can explain a lot of things, such as the Theory of Evolution. We can still learn more about it, but we have a very clear picture of how we evolved.

Hi!
You responded to the wrong guy