Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 0/65 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems of a different "Kind"
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2670 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 10 of 92 (416692)
08-17-2007 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Ihategod
08-17-2007 10:49 AM


I think you ought to define "kind" for us, vash.
Once we've got that nailed down, you can offer proof of your position.
I rather like your definition ...
birds as things in the sky, and fish as things in the sea, and animals as things on the land
Care to stick with that?
How does your definition square with the other creo definitions mentioned in messages 4 and 5?
And as for ...
This wouldn't preclude that they share a common ancestor or that some type of living ape variety is the ancestor.
This is stunning. You concede a common ancestor for the great apes?
And finally ...
Because of other animals interbreeding I don't think this reconciles the case for common descent on a timeline larger than 6k years. Darwin saw how fast finches could be changed through breeding, I don't see how all the variations couldn't have been relatively recent ... *If* the world is 6k years old, which I believe, and money was alloted to research these variations within this time frame, I would suspect the findings would be sufficient to propose an answer. At this time I am unaware of any scientific research for finding the limits of the variations in a biblical time frame.
If you would like to discuss the age of the earth, I have already pointed you toward the relevant threads. It is off topic here.
If you would like to discuss the "speed" of evolution, that too has its own thread (Question on Evolutionary Rates).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Ihategod, posted 08-17-2007 10:49 AM Ihategod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Ihategod, posted 08-17-2007 11:55 AM molbiogirl has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2670 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 16 of 92 (416718)
08-17-2007 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Ihategod
08-17-2007 12:33 PM


Re: ......
I have to disagree with the uniformitarianism model of stratigraphy. I think the layer could have more easily happened by a flood through particle placement of water swells.
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/rapid-formation-coal.htm
Fossils prove only that something died. Can't tell if they had any kids. Anyways wasn't this horse evolution proven wrong a long time ago?
http://www.bible.ca/...k-fraud-dawn-horse-eohippus.htm#fraud
For the third time. Take. It. To. The. Appropriate. Thread.
It should be noted that no one has done it yet, and it certainly doesn't mean there isn't another way to classify organisms in a creation model. Commonality speaks of design not of random chance.
Are you going to address my questions re: your definition of kind? You know, fish, bird, animal? Or have you conceded the point?
And what of the great apes' common ancestor?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Ihategod, posted 08-17-2007 12:33 PM Ihategod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Ihategod, posted 08-17-2007 1:31 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024