Well, I no longer recognize a cat as being a different kind of organism from a dog or bird, or fish. If I ever did. What’s a kind, and what does it mean to be a different kind? He won’t actually say. How can anyone argue with mush, or claim that it’s a lie, or even claim to believe it?
3 Likes
7 posts were merged into an existing topic: The Argument Clinic
A further point: While it is true that there is no completely consistent way in which “species” can be defined, this is not a problem for evolutionary biology in the way that the impossibility to categorize life into “kinds” is for creationists.
The reason is that, if common descent is true, there is no reason to expect that life forms could all be unambiguously assigned to one species or another. In fact, that no such clear categorization will be possible in all cases is one of the entailments of common descent.
Whereas YEC predicts that life forms will be categorizable in the discrete “kinds”, and the prediction is falsified.
3 Likes
9 posts were merged into an existing topic: The Argument Clinic
Well, on reflection, that’s not entirely true. There are a few people who think that some dinosaurs evolved from birds, but that birds are still dinosaurs. See for example Dinosaurs of the Air by Gregory S. Paul. It’s certainly possible. All that’s necessary is that we define “bird” to mean a flying theropod or any descendant of a flying theropod, and suppose that some early maniraptoran ancestor was able to fly. In that case, many maniraptorans would be secondarily flightless. Microraptor might even be evidence for this scenario.
1 Like
Do you really not understand the difference between the English words “should” and “would,” or are you merely pretending that you don’t? I’m not sure which alternative is more disturbing. 
1 Like
But, you still refuse to provide evidence to support your claims and denials.
You are not dealing with some child. Or teenager You are not dealing with some illiterate person.
And I’ve studied evolution for enough years, that I know enough to make a decision as to what I’ve heard or read is scientifically sound.
You are forgetting Darwin had no science degree. He didn’t even finish his study for theology.
Any evidence supplied by anyone to support common descent evolution, is not based upon empirical science.
The fossil record, was not observed. And the way organisms are reproducing today, THAT WE HAVE OBSERVED, contradicts common descent evolution.
Now, you’ve got access to my posts. Take them apart. Produce the evidence that disputes it.
Allow me to show you, YOU ARE WRONG.
Are those in this site, going to take offense just because I’ve made a statement that is true. I didn’t insult anyone. Or not to do so intentionally.
It was a fact, I’ve produced the evidence that contradicts common descent evolution.
And there have been those who read my posts and responded with animosity.
I’ve said nothing that I should be ashamed of.
If those who don’t agree with what I’ve said, would provide the evidence that disputes what I’ve said, in stead of attacking me, then there would be a true attempt a scientific discourse.
If you don’t want me here, fine.
I’ll leave you to your own way of thinking, you can continuer telling each other what you already think.
You haven’t.
3 Likes
You have provided no evidence, creationist lies and misrepresentations are not evidence.
Scientific evidence is provided by peer-reviewed scientific research articles, which you have provided none.
The Projection is strong in this one.
You say:
then you state
which is, frankly, a childish and illiterate argument. Of course cats do not change into dogs in a human lifespan. Biologists do not think cats changed into dogs ever. They descend from a common ancestral population. Nothing observed about the way organisms reproduce today contradicts common descent.
It doesn’t show. It would worthwhile for you to first learn the basics of biology instead of launching headlong into apologetics.
4 Likes
…on creationist websites, which means absolutely nothing to any informed person here. Your comments here indicate that whatever education you received from those websites is completely defective.
You clearly don’t. Most of the things you have written are based on misconceptions about evolutionary biology.
Um, if rigorous evidence is brought in to support an idea, that’s empirical science by definition. You are confused.
How does reproduction today contradict common descent?
In addition, how do you expect to observe the formation of the fossil record when it happened millions and billions of years ago? And how does not observing it’s formation somehow make it impossible for it to be used to support evolutionary biology?
You should be asking, if common descent happened, then what do I expect to see in the fossil record and other datasets (like genes and whole genomes).
4 Likes
Which claims/denials have I refused to support?
- That you won’t convince me about ‘God’ unless you are specific about which version you mean? I don’t need evidence for that.
- That you come across as an uninformed gull? That’s an opinion, and widely shared.
- That it’s a bad idea to ‘quote’ from things you haven’t read? I can show you where other people have been caught propagating misquotes if you insist.
- That you’re misrepresenting Patterson, Gould and Darwin? I’ve provided a signed statement by Patterson, and others have provided similar things from Gould. You refuse to say whether you’ve read Darwin.
- That the ‘whale evolution’ video is dreck? It’s a cheesy cartoon. It contains lots of falsehoods. Archaeopteryx preceding theropods is one; the date for Antarctic Basilosaurids (not Basilosaurus) is another. I could go through it and list them, but you haven’t shown enough willingness to listen for it to be worth my while.
- That you haven’t been studying evolution, only creationist claims about it? That’s obvious, and you’ve not denied it.
- That you plagiarised Mottortop’s article? Do you really want me to provide evidence that you aren’t Mottortop?
So exactly which of the claims/denials I have made have I refused to support?
That’s your claim. Support it.
2 Likes
No-one is forgetting that, because it isn’t true.
In Darwin’s time, there was no such thing as an explicit science degree. The closest thing available to a formal qualification in science was a B.A. which included courses in subjects that would now fall within a science degree, such as natural history, zoology, botany, mathematics and physics.
Darwin studied natural history and botany during the course of his B.A. at Cambridge. His final examination included questions on mathematics and physics. So to the extent there were science degrees available in Darwin’s time, Darwin had one.
Your complaint is akin to complaining that the Montgolfier brothers didn’t pass FAA pilot regulations, or that the gospel writers weren’t certified for using MS Office.
That degree also covered theology. It was a requirement for specialising in divinity. It was the only study for theology Darwin undertook, and he finished it. Darwin didn’t sign up for any further divinity courses, but so what? He didn’t sign up for a pottery apprenticeship either. That’d be just as irrelevant to his later work as divinity. He did abandon his medical studies, but again, so what? None of this has any bearing at all on the correctness of scientific views 150 years later. You’re just trying to smear Darwin because you mistakenly think it’s his authority you need to challenge, not his conclusions.
Your criticism is anachronistic, misaimed, faulty and, if you persist in it, dishonest.
Done. You are wrong.
5 Likes
Since you seem to misunderstand the meaning of “empirical” and think it refers to “something someone is quoted as saying”, I will again provide this quote which you ignored the first time I brought it to your attention. It comes from one of your fellow YEC’s, one of the few who have legit science training and actually understand how science operates. This quote has the further advantage over the ones you have provided in that it has not been deceptively taken out of context, and the person quoted has repeatedly affirmed that it is an accurate representation of his views: That the empirical evidence clearly supports evolution and he rejects that evidence solely because it conflicts with his religious beliefs. Your comments and reactions are appreciated:
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
I say these things not because I’m crazy or because I’ve “converted” to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I’m motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)
Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn’t make it ultimately true, and it doesn’t mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God’s creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don’t be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don’t idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that’s not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.
3 Likes
My bad. That response definitely showed that I misjudged your level of maturity (despite not calling it into question in the first place). I shall leave you alone and allow you to interact with the others while I attempt to overcome my grief at this scathing response
3 Likes
Nevertheless, your posts do not seem to support what you say about your years of study
That’s an example of the buffoonish things that you say.
It doesn’t. So that was another buffoonish statement.
2 Likes
I think he’s trying but failing to remember the creationist distinction between historical science and operational science.
1 Like
Oh posh. Yes, I have.
First of all, evolutionists have not supplied any empirical evidence for common descent evolution.
They, now you, have never supplied any evidence not only that a less complex protocell could have evolved from chemicals, but, neither have they not supplied any evidence when life did appear, it appeared as a complex cell.
Today, all new cells, NEW CELLS, new cells, are formed only from already existing cells.
Oh, and don’t let me forget to remind you that those already existing cells are all actual single celled or they make up multicelled organisms.
That’s it.
And without demonstrating your mythical protocell could have magically appeared, chemically appeared or by chance appeared, then you have nothing to base your mythical premise common descent evolution upon.
But, that’s just have your headaches.
Because even if you could get a protocell to form. then you need to show it could have evolved into a more complex cell. And from that you’d need to demonstrate that it could have evolved into a single celled organism, then into a multicelled organism.
Hey, but wait. That’s not all of your headaches.
Because the evolutionists have never supplied any occurrences of common ancestry where one kind of life form could be the common ancestor of two different kinds of lifeforms
For example, although the evolutionists claim birds evolved from dinosaurs, this is just a claim and they have not shown from modern day examples that what they claim about dinosaurs to birds, land animals to whales, or ape like creatures to man, could have been possible.
Now, for my evidence. You can actually see that birds, give birth to birds. Cats all mate and reprodue more cats. Dogs, mate and more dogs are reproduced.
All of the ape kind, (that would include that mythical common ancestor to man), would have mated with another of THEIR OWN KIND (or if you prefer), another of it’s own species, AND THE RESULTING DESCENDANT WOULD HAVE ALSO BEEN THE SAME KIND OF ORGANISM AS THE TWO THAT MATED IT INTO EXISTENCE.
This is what has been observed. I repeat This is what has been observed. This is the pattern, the only pattern that has been observed. And if it is what is being observed. If it was what our ancestors had observed. Then there is no evidence that supports your claims, it wasn’t what we would have observed if we had been present when any animals or humans has been reproducing in the past.
Now, come on with your bad self. Produce your evidence that contradicts this.