Biological classification vs 'Kind'

No they don't. Hence the word "creationists". Things that have been proved true are not "assumptions". If you will for a moment extract your head from wherever you currently have it lodged and glance at the real world, you will note that it is always the evolutionists who are explaining the difference between the two concepts to creationists who are determined to muddle them up.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The problem is that there are no "basic principles of YEC science". What you actually mean is that you're tired of explaining your version of creationism to people who have seen a hundred other versions of creationism which are different from yours. But like all creationists, you go about talking as though your own chosen brand of nonsense is the One True Creationism, and go about saying "creationists believe ..." when a more honest man would say "I believe ..."

quote:

---

Aside from the problem with a common creationist definition of macroevolution which I have already brought up, I am afraid that interbreeding does come into it. Many creationists propose interfertility as a test to see if two species fall within the same kind (although my understanding is that they include artificial situations as well as natural breeding)

---

Yes - please understand the difference here. I was discussing what would or would not fit within a YEC model. Interbreeding between kinds (if shown to exist) would still fit within a YEC model (it does not invalidate the model because it does not conflict with the Biblical text). That being the case - there is no data suggesting it may exist - therefore the ability to interbreed MAY indeed be an indicator of like-kind.

quote:

---

No they don't. Hence the word "creationists".

---

Please - don't betray your ignorance to this issue. Five minutes and a google search would have been adequate research to learn about the topic.Old earth creationists ARE darwinists - a subset of them anyway. They DO believe in the darwinian "molecules-to-man" common ancestry evolution. The only issue on which the OEC and athiestic darwinists disagree is the generation of life. OECs say God created the first single celled organism and athiestic darwinists claim it occurred through abiogenesis.

quote:

---

Things that have been proved true are not "assumptions"

---

Again, you are demonstrating your ignorance on the subject. None of the assumptions I've listed have even come close to being proven. Abiogenesis is so speculative that darwinists don't even have a clear consensus theory on how it could have occurred. On the contrary, there is fairly convincing data suggesting they are false.

quote:

---

If you will for a moment extract your head from wherever you currently have it lodged and glance at the real world, you will note that it is always the evolutionists who are explaining the difference between the two concepts to creationists who are determined to muddle them up.

---

No doubt many religious folk who have never bothered with science do indeed need an explanation of the two concepts (as do many non-religious folk) - anyone from AiG does not. But we are not talking about confusing concepts. We're talking about separating them. Unless you want to join intelligent design or the OEC camp then darwinism and abiogensis are inseparable. The one does not work without the other. Then again, maybe you have some other naturalistic theory as to the origin of life that I've never heard of?

quote:

---

The problem is that there are no "basic principles of YEC science". What you actually mean is that you're tired of explaining your version of creationism to people who have seen a hundred other versions of creationism which are different from yours. But like all creationists, you go about talking as though your own chosen brand of nonsense is the One True Creationism, and go about saying "creationists believe ..." when a more honest man would say "I believe ..."

---

This is simply more ignorance to the issue. There is STRONG consensus among young-earth creation scientists as to the basic principles of the YEC model. Just as among darwinist scientists there is certainly debate over some specific issues - but such is to be expected.Also please note that I did not claim to speak for creationists as a whole except on matters of widespread consensus. In areas where there is not I prefaced my comments with a disclaimer. Feel free to take a moment and re-read my posts.

Sorry, that is not the case.Here are five hypothesis regarding the origin of the first life forms.

a) Natural processes occurring entirely upon earth resulted in chains of self-replicating molecular strands that eventually became the first life forms.
​
b) Aliens from another planet and/or dimension traveled to this planet and -- deliberately or accidentally -- seeded the planet with the first life forms.
​
c) In the future, humans will develop a means to travel back in time. They will use this technology to plant the first life forms in Earth's past, making the existence of life a causality loop.
​
d) A divine agent of unspecified nature zap-poofed the first life forms into existence.
​
e) Any method other than the four described above led to the existence of the first life forms.

Please tell us why only abiogenesis must be associated with the events described by theory of evolution.And please explain why any of the other options could not be associated with the events described by the evolution.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

No. To be more accurate: except in matters where you claim there is a widespread consensus for which you are entitled to speak.

Quite so. Perhaps you should take your own advice. Even if you were to count theistic evolutionists as "creationists" --- which would render the word "creationist" practically meaningless --- it is certainly not the case that all OECs or even most accept evolution. Haven't you heard of the "Gap Theory"? How about "Day-Age Creationism"? Ring any bells? Many OECs would be most startled to learn from you what their opinions are. Tell you what, why don't you email Hugh Ross and the folks at "Reasons to believe" and try telling them that that's the only point on which they disagree with "atheistic darwinists". Or yours. Depending on which of us is wrong. (Hint: it's you.) Yes they have. You are, of course, wrong.You are also, rather obligingly, making my point for me. On the one hand we have evolutionists pointing out to you that the two concepts are distinct and logically separable, and on the other hand a creationist insisting that they are, and I quote, "inseparable".And yet you have the hypocritical gall to whine that "It's darwinists that force the marriage of abiogenesis and evolution".No, it isn't. It's you.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Here are five hypothesis regarding the origin of the first life forms.

​

a) Natural processes occurring entirely upon earth resulted in chains of self-replicating molecular strands that eventually became the first life forms.
b) Aliens from another planet and/or dimension traveled to this planet and -- deliberately or accidentally -- seeded the planet with the first life forms.

​

c) In the future, humans will develop a means to travel back in time. They will use this technology to plant the first life forms in Earth's past, making the existence of life a causality loop.

​

d) A divine agent of unspecified nature zap-poofed the first life forms into existence.

​

e) Any method other than the four described above led to the existence of the first life form

---

Thanks for making my point. Let's take a closer look at this: A abiogenesis. B, C, and D are examples of intelligent design, E is that unspecified other means that is supposedly more reasonable than a supernatural origin.Note again what I said: "unless you want to join the ID or OEC camps...". So, unless you want to subscribe to an intelligent design theory (B, C, or D) you have no choice but to accept A, because (as of yet anyway) there is no E.

quote:

---

And please explain why any of the other options could not be associated with the events described by the evolution.

---

There is only one other viable option put forward at this point: intelligent design (which your B, C, and D are examples of). But since the new-athiest Darwinists are vehemantly opposed to anything ID, they are forced to either accept abiogenesis (A) or admit they have no freakin' clue (E).

Welcome to EvC Bob THJ. I hope you can handle some constructive criticism.The term you are using "aethiestic darrwinists" is both loaded and false. Not all people who accept the Theory of Evolution are atheists, therefore to use this term is to imply a false connection that does not exist in real life. Case in point - nearly all my professors in physics, chemistry, geology, and biology who all supported the TOE were either Episcopalians or Presbyterians.Please do not imply that all 'Darwinists' are atheists, to do such would be bearing false witness. Additionally should you claim that Episcopalians and Presbyterians (I've seen it before) are atheists, then you would be violating the commandment concerning either "placing other gods before me" or 'blasphemy' as you would be usurping the Christian God's prerogative as the final judge. Oh boy, you haven't been here long. Abiogenesis is about how life began, currently in a quite speculative area of science. The TOE is about how life changes over time subject to several selective pressures which can be duplicated both in the lab and electronically. The two concepts are actually not linked as a person could easily believe (as several do) that any purported divinity started life, and then allowed it to evolve within the rules such a divinity set up. I just pointed out they are indeed separable. Please argue that point using logic, deductive and inductive reasoning, and quantitative and qualitative evidence. Calling people ignorant without knowledge of that person's posting history or providing any reasoning or evidence will just make you look like a fool around these parts. Have you ever heard of the book Forbidden Archeology? That is creationism, fundamentalist Hinduism style. Are you familiar with the fact there were around 500 tribes in the Americas, at the time Columbus landed in Hispaniola, each with their own creation story. Are you aware of the fact Celts, the Norse, Egyptians, Sumerians, and so on each have their own creation story?If I were you, I would be more cautious about using the term ignorant against posters here before I knew more about their detailed knowledge of science, philosophy, religion, and history. If you come off as an arrogant and relatively undereducated simpleton, I personally guarantee they and I will tear you a new one.Just a suggestion.

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

Sorry to say, but your answer ducks the question.Can you try again, and this time address the point I made.Adding the original point:

​

Please tell us why only abiogenesis must be associated with the events described by theory of evolution.

​

And please explain why any of the other options could not be associated with the events described by the evolution.

Edited by Coyote, : Include original point

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

He didn't. He refuted it. Thank you for making his point.Yes, those would be examples of intelligent design. And they would be entirely compatible with evolution.

quote:

---

Even if you were to count theistic evolutionists as "creationists" --- which would render the word "creationist" practically meaningless --- it is certainly not the case that all OECs or even most accept evolution.

​

Many OECs would be most startled to learn from you what their opinions are. Tell you what, why don't you email Hugh Ross and the folks at "Reasons to believe" and try telling them that that's the only point on which they disagree with "atheistic darwinists".

---

You are correct and I am wrong. I overstepped and oversimplified. Certainly not all OECs accept molecules-to-man evolution (gap theory for instance does not). I responded too quickly. My apologies for saying you were ignorant to the issue when it was myself who was mistaken.I'll revise: many OECs are darwinian evolutionists.

quote:

---

Yes they have.

---

Care to give some evidence for any one of them?

quote:

---

You are also, rather obligingly, making my point for me. On the one hand we have evolutionists pointing out to you that the two concepts are distinct and logically separable, and on the other hand a creationist insisting that they are, and I quote, "inseparable".

​

And yet you have the hypocritical gall to whine that "It's darwinists that force the marriage of abiogenesis and evolution".

---

I stand by this point - and I indicated in my response to Coyote. All origin of life theories (that I've heard anyway) fall into one of two categories:
* abiogenesis (or the spontaneous generation of life from inorganic material)
* intelligent designNote that I say (paraphrase) "unless you want to accept ID you have to accept abiogenesis." I wasn't trying to say that darwinian evolution and ID are exclusive. Only that the prevailing neo-atheists who champion darwinism are unwilling to accept it and thus are forced to accept abiogenesis by default. I could have been more clear - my apologies.

quote:

---

Welcome to EvC Bob THJ.

---

Thank you, glad to be part of the discussion.

quote:

---

I hope you can handle some constructive criticism.

---

I certainly try to - and I appreciate your analysis, though it seems you may not have understood my positions.

quote:

---

The term you are using "aethiestic darrwinists" is both loaded and false. Not all people who accept the Theory of Evolution are atheists, therefore to use this term is to imply a false connection that does not exist in real life. Case in point - nearly all my professors in physics, chemistry, geology, and biology who all supported the TOE were either Episcopalians or Presbyterians.

​

Please do not imply that all 'Darwinists' are atheists, to do such would be bearing false witness. Additionally should you claim that Episcopalians and Presbyterians (I've seen it before) are atheists, then you would be violating the commandment concerning either "placing other gods before me" or 'blasphemy' as you would be usurping the Christian God's prerogative as the final judge.

---

It was not my intent to imply all darwinists are atheists. If you will look back at my previous posts you will see that this was my first use of the two words together. I was attempting to refer to a specific subset of darwinists with this comment - those who are atheists. I apologize if this was not more clear - as I said above I should have chosen better wording.

quote:

---

Oh boy, you haven't been here long. Abiogenesis is about how life began, currently in a quite speculative area of science. The TOE is about how life changes over time subject to several selective pressures which can be duplicated both in the lab and electronically. The two concepts are actually not linked as a person could easily believe (as several do) that any purported divinity started life, and then allowed it to evolve within the rules such a divinity set up.

---

Of course...and I agree with you completely. Again, if you look at my previous posts you will see that I understand the distinction between the two. I wasn't trying to state that abiogenesis and the darwinian evolution are one in the same.

quote:

---

I just pointed out they are indeed separable. Please argue that point using logic, deductive and inductive reasoning, and quantitative and qualitative evidence. Calling people ignorant without knowledge of that person's posting history or providing any reasoning or evidence will just make you look like a fool around these parts

---

My point was that since most darwinists who are atheists reject ID than abiogensis is their only remaining option.

quote:

---

Have you ever heard of the book Forbidden Archeology? That is creationism, fundamentalist Hinduism style. Are you familiar with the fact there were around 500 tribes in the Americas, at the time Columbus landed in Hispaniola, each with their own creation story. Are you aware of the fact Celts, the Norse, Egyptians, Sumerians, and so on each have their own creation story?

---

Yes, these are all examples of intelligent design. However, that was not my question. I asked if there was another naturalistic theory....supernatural theories such as these creation stories do not fit that definition.

quote:

---

If I were you, I would be more cautious about using the term ignorant against posters here before I knew more about their detailed knowledge of science, philosophy, religion, and history. If you come off as an arrogant and relatively undereducated simpleton, I personally guarantee they and I will tear you a new one.

​

Just a suggestion.

---

Of course....there was one example above where I should not have used the term - and indeed showed myself to be hypocritical on the issue. Please understand I'm not an angry simple-minded name-caller. I don't troll internet forums looking to start flame-wars. I'm more than happy to step up and admit it when I'm wrong.I addressed Dr Adequate's comments as ignorant because they were. I certainly don't believe Dr Adequate to be an ignorant person - his* post-count testifies otherwise. It'd be hard to accumulate that many posts of mindless nonsense without receiving a chorus of groans whenever you contributed the conversation. Since that didn't occur I knew Dr Adequate had to be at least somewhat educated. Which is why I was so surprised by his responses - denying my arguments without a hint of logical rebuttal. I thusly characterized those responses as ignorant - and hoped by doing so to draw out a more reasoned reply from him.* Dr Adequate: If you are female then please accept my apologies for using the wrong pronouns

quote:

---

Creos assert that there have been no new kinds since the original point of creation. This is key to their position.

​

Is that how you see their position too?

---

Yes.Try this one. Creationists do not believe that macroevolution is defined by whether it happened or not. If universal common descent were true, it WOULD involve macroevolution. Do you agree with that ?