Summations Only

quote:

---

You wrongly quoted Genesis as man came from clay.

​

You wrongly quoted Genesis that man came from iodine and phosophorous.

---

Of course humans contain those things. How else? Are you short of iodine or iron - get yourself checked.

quote:

---

You failed to acknowledge the discrepency in ToE of not listing actions which predate life.

​

Why should ToE have anything to with anything pre-life? It's a part of BIOLOGY.

---

Biology is part of a system which fostered it. Life is not possible without pre-live actions which anticipate and foster life. Genesis wins.

quote:

---

ToE also doesn't address gravity. So what?

---

Laws address gravity and laws have a source.

quote:

---

You failed to acknowledge that today's laws for humanity stem from the Hebrew bible

​

I refuted it.

---

Not all laws come from the Hebrew bible, a late comer in the ancient world. But all laws followed by the world's instutions are listed only in the Hebrew bible - without the head bashing deities.

quote:

---

You failed to acknowledge the first recording of the universe being finite

​

Prove that it's finite.

---

Its expanding. It was not infinite 10 seconds ago. One cannot make an infinite rope longer - else it was not infinite!

quote:

---

that there is no alternative to Creationism or Monotheism.

​

Polytheism.

---

If it takes more than one deity - then they are all weak in graduating diminishing order. You are only pushing the goal post further - with no credible premise at the end.

quote:

---

'selection' is nothing other than a random occurence

​

No, selection is the opposite of random.

---

Then where is your selector - evolution never existed at one time, so how can it account for anything other than being a selectEE?

quote:

---

Basically your assessment of the entire discussion is woefully wrong, just like all your points have been.

​

Let's sum this up.

​

You believe that Jews are magic because your mommy told you Jews are magic. Period. That's the entire reason you hold your belief.

---

That's a sum up? If I respond adequately, all the blame goes on the Jews? Why not see them as a small, miniscule nation, with no land, oils or population to boast of instead? Your attacks are now descending to racism, not science. And strangely, which you ignore, the Jews have excelled in science, chemistry, medicine, literature and a host of faculties, in the Nobels and other award sectors, even under woeful conditions - one must wonder where they got their education from!

quote:

---

End of story.

---

Check mate.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Yeah, you've already been corrected but I'll correct you again. Your wrong.I was under the impression that Science deals with evidence? You know, emperical evidence? Or is that only a sect of Science? How much assuming goes into the TOE? You say none? Oh, ok.It's obsevable you say? The scienctific method? But, in order to make a point, you suspend all that by saying you cannot check the whole universe? LOL. Well, in that case all the fossils that have been found should not be evidence since there has to be MILLIONS more right? How can one make such a conclusion with only 1% of the fossil evidence?Stop contadicting yourself. We havn't found other life, therefore as it stands, we conclude, there is none. Unless you are a pseudo sciency kind of guy? Did you like ET? Is that why your emotional about this subject? How long are you willing to wait for ET to reveal himself to you? Or till they find a tree on saturn?Well, maybe the TOE should wait too. So, now were back to square one. Genesis is a good start. Read it, it will tell you what is happening today actually. The first clue is apple trees producing apples, pigs producing pigs, monkeys producing monkeys. Seems the Bible is true. Well, with what we can observe anyway, and not specualte

As of this morning I am moderating this thread.Some of the recent posts primarily address off-topic issues generally related to the creation/evolution debate. Please address the topic, which is about the definition of species.Concerning the recent discussion about the SIGLEC13 gene, before discussion continues someone must explain how it is relevant to the topic.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic content.

Wow, and I thought Joseph was a problem.Do you _REALLY_ not understand the difference between evidence and lack of evidence? REALLY?Joseph is trying to claim that because 1% of the surface of Mars doesn't have life, then the ENTIRE REST OF THE UNIVERSE must not contain life.Now you are trying to claim that because we HAVE EVIDENCE of evolution, evolution must be false because there is MORE evidence for up to obtain.These are fundamental misunderstandings that can't be corrected by someone smarter than you telling you the right answer. You need to go back to step one and get an education.

You said that these two elements are specifically mentioned in the Bible. That was a L.I.E.Now, back on topic.The Bible has NO workable definition of species, therefore Creationism has no workable definition of species.Couple that with Creationisms no workable definition of mechanism and no accounting for existing or future data and you're left with NADA.Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Of course humans contain those things. How else? Are you short of iodine or iron - get yourself checked.

​

So said that these two elements are specifically mentioned in the Bible. That was a L.I.E.

---

No lie. It says man is made OF THE EARTH [dam = earth]; earth = all elements of this earth. Terms such as iodine are new.

quote:

---

Now, back on topic.

​

The Bible has NO workable definition of species, therefore Creationism has no workable definition of species.

---

I say that every aspect of Darwin's notions of species is already contained in Genesis, and more comprehensively and scientifically posited. Darwin, a religious Christian, was reading and responding what is in genesis; his folly was that he observed a process at work and shouted Eureka! no processor here. Darwin made no other contribution other than exciting atheists.

quote:

---

Couple that with Creationisms no workable definition of mechanism and no accounting for existing or future data and you're left with NADA.

---

Why do you say so? There is a continueing list of actions, beginning from a pre-uni scenario, to the advent of laws being introduced, to the first products in the universe, and the first actions on earth which anticipated life. The future is also catered to with workable laws for humanity and how we can survive over population and diminished climactic conditions in the future.I know of no other document which measures up to this mysterious writings. I wonder how a band of desert people knew about a desease being infectious [impacting by air flow] before this word was coined? I am wondering why we do not have a NAME pre-6000 which can be proven - nor a city, nation, war, king or anything which can be positively allocated to a speech endowed human, and how it is exacting and vindicated to the year and day? I am of course willing to be enlightened.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

You say that often. Doesn't make it right.Genesis just says "kind". That's not a definition of species. It doesn't even distinguish between family/genus/species.It's a giant fail. As usual. Yeah, that pretty much sums up the entire problem with this discussion.You know one document and you want to pretend it has the answers for everything. The rest of us know more and disagree. You and I both know this isn't true.

Fascinating, but off topic, maybe you could tell me where in the bible it tells how to do these things over in the climate change delusion thread, seems appropriate. I'll give it a bump for you.

---

"No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten."
Hunter S. ThompsonAd astra per asperaNihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

I have my finger on the suspension trigger. Please, everyone, follow these specific requests:

1. Keep discussion civil. Accusations that someone is lying are uncivil. In my experience people are almost always mistaken or misinformed and are honestly stating what they believe to be true.
   ​
2. Address the topic, which is the definition of species. If Genesis includes a definition of species then someone needs to state this definition so that it may be discussed.
   ​
3. This is a science thread, so arguments and evidence should be scientific. Religious arguments should not be used in this thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

quote:

---

I say that every aspect of Darwin's notions of species is already contained in Genesis,

​

You say that often. Doesn't make it right.

​

Genesis just says "kind". That's not a definition of species. It doesn't even distinguish between family/genus/species.

---

Once more with feelings. The word kinds is a most appropriate word here, considering that specie is very recent and thus not understandable by all generations. There is certainly a definition of species and sub-groupings, and this is made by terrain and habitat: what do you call water borne; air borne; land borne - if not definitions of the most fundamental and first observed criteria? Yes it does make absolute distinctions also, declaring each follows only their own kind - that is a clear distinction, referring to separate kinds.There is also descriptions of how kinds are processed, namey via the host seed containing specific data, which can be transmitted to the offspring to continue the process - thereby ensuring why life continues within each specie - without any assistance from the environment or nature. In contrast, the latter two cannot deliver.The standout features of Genesis' mode of evolution are two factors totally deficient and absent in Darwin's mode:1. Pre-actions conducive to the advent of life.2. That life was initiated in a dual gendered form.These are great errors in Darwinism which cannot be classified as scientific. The followers of ToE improvised these glitches with novel and fantastic manipulations and inventions - none of which are scientifically based or witnessed before us today. Today, a growing number of scientists are inclining with genesis, some using backdoor methods such as ID, which posits a design without a designer. This is akin to a car whose design we can observe - as proof there is no car maker. The reverse must apply, no? So how can a British school system not mention these factors which are introduced in Genesis and still retain any crediblity?

It just seems there is no alternative to humanity preparing and going forth to conquer new frontiers outside earth. Our climate solution today is based in a forecast of say 300 years from now; but what happens 3000 years from now, and is that not the point which should decide our direction?If humanity makes a combined effort, each country contributing resources, money and effort, the issue can be easily resolved as per Genesis' advocations; it can only get worse of the measures being discussed today. This is because no matter what measures we take, in the coming furutre we won't be able to movie our noses no matter how clean this planet is.It was Kennedy who challenged his nation to make a first manned moon mission. Humanity needs a Kennedy figure to extend this premise.

Hi IamJoseph,This is a science thread. The Bible can provide the inspiration for your definition of species, but you cannot cite the Bible as evidence for your definition. In science threads evidence comes from the real world, not revelation.Please do the following:

1. Please provide a clear and concise statement of your definition of species.
   ​
2. Please provide scientific evidence that "life was initiated in a dual gendered form."
   ​
3. Please do not mention the Bible or Genesis again.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Fearandloathing stated in the very message you replied to that climate was off-topic in this thread and said he would provide a bump for you over at the Climate Change Delusion thread, which he did, yet you replied in this thread anyway.See you tomorrow.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

So "kind" is the best definition of species because species isn't a word yet.Does that make sense to you?That's like saying "stuff" is the best definition for any given noun because "stuff" is easier to understand than any given noun. Tomato. Lettuce. Carrots. Word salad. Meaning there was one and now there is two. OMGBBQ! It's increased 100%!!!