Evolution is a process which involved the origin of life.
Evolution is a totally random process, a series of "accidents."
Evolution was developed in order to destroy or undermine religion.
In order to accept evolution as a valid explanation, you cannot believe in God.
Evolution increases structure and order, but that goes against Newton's second law of thermodynamics.
"Evolution is only a theory."
There is actually very little evidence for evolution.
One indication that evolution has not occurred is the total absence of "transitional (intermediate) fossils."
Fossils reveal many problems which evolution cannot explain.
Evolution has been tested and challenged many times, but has always been supported by the results.
There is considerable observed evidence against evolution
Science can productively study the past, based on evidence, so evolution is a proper subject for science.
The formation of complex structures, like the eye, can be readily explained by evolution.
That is more than half the questions - and many YECs believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, too.
quote: I believe there are many creationists like me, that understand your theory but simply don't accept it is true and believe on logical grounds it runs short of the mark.
Your understanding might be better than most creationists, Mike but if you really want us to think that you have good reasons for rejecting evolution you need to show us those reasons. Instead of bragging about obviously bad arguments. As you do in Message 5
quote: When we find what you would call a 400 million year old jellyfish, because the bible says jellyfish would be jellyfish, like it said a dove was on the ark, as evidence what can we expect a jellyfish to look like if the rocks were laid down by the flood?
I'd expect a jellyfish to look like a jellyfish whether rocks were laid down by the Flood or not. That is why it isn't evidence that rocks were laid down by the Flood.
quote: But think about it, if the bible is true and we assume for the sake of the creation model that the flood laid down the fossils (we won't get into debating that) then as evidence, if the same creatures today, perished then, what else could we expect if they were fossilized, as evidence?
But it is not the same creatures, is it? Really we'd expect to find a lot of modern creatures - and we don't. And that's before we get into the order of the fossil record or the problems of attributing large amounts of geology to a single year-long Flood.
So I guess the question is whether you are being dishonest by ignoring evidence that you know exists or just too ignorant to know that it exists. Either way it hardly looks good for your case.
quote: Please now, no more off topic posts, this has already turned into a free for all to just attack creation and creationists.
It's rather obvious that the point of this thread was another attempt to cover up creationist ignorance and the weakness of the creationist position. It was always going to backfire, especially when you keep handing out ammunition to your opponents.
Mike wants us to think that he is informed and has sound reasons for rejecting evolution. He has to use indirect means because when he tries to present his arguments it becomes obvious that it isn't true. Typical creationist egotism I'm afraid.
There really is no single ‘baraminology method’ but rather a collection of methods used in successive approximation. In the following sections, I present a few techniques that can be used by nearly any biologist. I begin with Scriptural considerations, then move to additive and subtractive evidences, and conclude with an interpretation of my results.
Note also that the the only "subtractive evidence" is morphological difference which is hardly strong evidence of a discontinuity in itself. It is a result entirely consistent with evolution. There is no "hard" criterion that allows different "kinds" to be reliably identified.
The objection that the same could be said of species or the other taxonomic groupings used by mainstream science entirely misses the point. The absence of clear boundaries is evidence for evolution, and against the existence of separate "kinds" no matter what system is employed.
quote: Your note would appear to support my argument and not yours. I'll add that there is no reason creationist could not add something like "ability to produce viable offspring" to the criteria. In discussions, they generally do that
I am afraid that you are not paying attention. "Subtractive evidence" is - supposedly - evidence that the species are NOT in the same kind. The "ability to produce viable offspring" is NOT evidence of that - quite the reverse.
quote: I agree that it is not the most important issue to be discussed, but I then I am not making an argument against evolution.
It is also not even related to the point I am making.
quote: Yes. That is true of course. But not relevant to my comment.
The fact that you are drawing a false equivalence certainly seems to be relevant.
quote: I am instead pointing out what I think is a strained, yet often repeated argument in favor of evolution.
Of course the fundamental point was "what evidence would we expect to see if 'kinds' were real". Since kinds are - by definition - separate creations with no evolutionary relationship clear boundaries are to be expected. Since even the creationists we are talking about agree that species are not separate creations but have evolutionary relationships to at least some other species it is not expected that we should be able to find clear boundaries.
quote: I did not say that they were the same thing.
Since the point you were replying to was explicitly and exclusively dealing with "subtractive evidence" offering an additional criterion without explanation is naturally read as offering an additional example. And, of course, offering anything else would require an explanation of why it was relevant. Which was not provided.
quote: I don't believe that statement to be correct. With a few notable exceptions, Creationists do not rely on scripture rather than biology
The point you are objecting to is that creationists do not find adequate evidence of kinds in biology and resort to scripture to make up the difference.
So far your response has been to assert that species don't look like separate creations either and to say that creationists can use some biological evidence to identify species as belonging to the same kind.
If you are going to object at least come up with objections that are relevant and and not obviously inadequate.
quote: Basically I regard you as a troll a lot of the time. Mainly all you do is attempt personal attacks.
Truthful criticism of creationists is not trolling, no matter how much you dislike it. And is is not as if creationists aren't happy to use what you would call "personal attacks" either.
quote: So then do you complain when I try to provide evidence I do understand evolution?
In fact the point I raised is that your attempt to "prove" that you understand evolution looks to me like an attempt to bolster your arguments against criticism without actually showing that those arguments are any good - and I speculate that the reason for that is because your arguments aren't good (and they aren't). The fact that you spend a lot of your post going on about your claimed understanding of evolution rather than actually showing that you have good arguments only reinforces that impression.
And you do yourself no favours by making silly accusations of "poor reasoning"
quote: As an example of poor reasoning for example, showing you aren't qualified to assess my claims, you said, "typical creationist egotism", as though egotism is something that comes from "creationism" or is typical of creationists. Egotism doesn't come from a belief/subject people hold. That would be like saying, "typical Caucasian egotism".
in my experience egotism IS typical of creationists. If you think that says that egotism comes from creationism then the faulty reasoning is yours.
quote: Well, no you're changing the goal posts. Egotism is present in any group despite if they are evolutionist or creationist, because pride is a sin common to all humans. That is the salient point, not your excuse.
I'm not changing the goal posts in the least. And the fact that you invent dubious interpretations of my words is no evidence that I am doing so.
quote: As for the former part of this comment, it is the black-swan fallacy. "Your experience" counts for very little.
The "black swan fallacy" is concluding a universal from inadequate evidence. Since I am not concluding a universal the error is yours.
quote: No, you implied I didn't understand evolution...
quote: I only provided an argument against evolution as a link for Son Goku because he said he hadn't come across any argument from creationism he wouldn't categorise as being poor, or some such thing.
And in that post you said:
...but I won't discuss it here, as this isn't the place to discuss these things,
If you want discussion of the quality of your arguments then that is a very odd thing to say.
quote: So the relevance of "arguments against evolution" and your bare assertions my arguments aren't good, are basically repeats of your previous comments. But to prove anything you say you have to back it up. Other boneheads might think it sufficient for an evolutionist to just say "you're arguments are no good", but I require you actually show it, but as I say, it is not particularly germane to this thread anyway, so all of those bare assertions and false things you say about my arguments, only count for what they are; false gibberish and lies.
How can I back up the claim without discussing the merits of your arguments - which you don't want here ?
quote: You are, by saying it applies to, "creationists". Google the term, "universal". (applicable to all cases.) You at least implied it, as though by referring to creationists as the ones with egotism, there was a link, when egotism is universal to all people but not universal to all creationists in the sense you tie the two together as though egotism and creationists, is an important link. It isn't, pride is found in evolutionists, too.
No Mike. If I had claimed that ALL creationists were egotists then I would be making a universal claim. Instead I simply claim that egotism is common among creationists.
quote: Pay closer attention
Maybe you should try understanding what I write instead of spouting silly nonsense.
quote: You are. provide evidence of your implication I am not informed about evolution or shut up.
I implied no such thing.
quote: Not wrong, "again" implies it happened once before which is a question-begging-epithet.
Which shows that you understand neither "epithet" nor "question-begging"
quote: Then it is misleading an mendacious and bare assertion to mention the quality of that claim based only on a statement.
Mike you may wish to assume that I have never seen your arguments - not even the one you linked to in this thread but you would be wrong. The only point on which you are correct is that it is bare assertion - but you have made it plain that discussion of your arguments is off-topic here so what more is there ?
I will add that you still have not addressed my actual point and instead engaged in your usual dishonest attempts to censor statements you don't like.
How that actually helps your cause I leave to you, but I will just note that engaging in obvious dishonesty hardly says anything good about you or those you would defend.