Theist ➤ Why ☠ Evolution is not Scientific ✔

[The Joker]

I love how theists claim that evolution is not scientific, as though the bible is.

The Bible is an extraordinary book that has been prophetically proven through fulfilled prophecy and archaeology, it would be difficult to produce here in text forum. I can't post links yet.

[Tonus]

“The Creator is clearly seen,” Paul explained to the Romans 1:20.

Yes, but he says that after what he said in Romans 1:11-13: "I long to see you so that I may...come[.]" Are you sure you want to accept evidence for god from such a filthy little douchebag?

[I_am_not_mafia]

8 Examples of Evolution in Action are all examples of variation within a kind they are not evolution.

This is going to get repetitive ...

Your argument about 'kinds' shows that you do not understand the theory of evolution. Only creationists refer to 'kinds'. No scientist ever does and scientists are the ones who have researched evolution. You can't breed a fox and a donkey, but both species have a common ancestor. Evolution works in very small steps (or variation if you will) and these small steps accumulate over time. Speciation occurs when a population finds a separate evolutionary niche that can be filled and the subsequent generations become adapted to it instead.

You're the one using the term 'kinds'. How do you define a kind of animal? Do you define it as two species that cannot breed? In which case all you are doing is stating a tautology.

Try learning what evolution actually is before you try arguing against it otherwise all you do is perform a strawman argument.

When it comes to dating the age of the earth.

"A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a
particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it
confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn’t it?"
Tom Kemp, "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record", New
Scientist, Vol. 108, Dec. 5, 1985, p. 67.

We also know the age of the Earth based on geology. I am not a geologist, I married one and have just asked him about it now as he as walked through the door.

Radiometric dating tells us that the Earth is over 4 billion years. We have rocks from the moon, zircon crystals that do not change once they form and the oldest one found is 4.4 billion years old. There is no chance that Zircon is pre-Earth. The heat of the Earth is consistent with our understanding the age and the radioactive material within. We can observe solar systems forming in other parts of the galaxy which is consistent with our understanding of the age of the Earth.

The fossil record is just one extra bit of observable evidence.

[The Joker]

A kind means the same type of healthy animal that can procreate, in other words it isn't Cat+Dog or horse + cow but rather Cow+Cow, Dog+Dog They are all the same kind.

Okay, what does 'type' mean in that sentence?  Can you relate a 'kind' to any sort of taxonomic labels or is it just its own new definition?  I've heard a dozen different definitions of 'kind' from as many theists, so what makes your definition of 'kind' correct?

I always interpret things from the Creationist perspective, so I don't primarily use the evolutionary scale. Kinds also known as Baraminology(from the two Hebrew words bara, meaning “created,” and min, meaning “kind”).  Often, people are confused into thinking that a “species” is a “kind.” But this isn’t necessarily so. A plain reading of the text infers that plants and animals were created to reproduce within the boundaries of their kind. Evidence to support this concept is clearly seen (or rather not seen) in our world today, as there are no reports of dats (dog + cat) or hows (horse + cow)!  

Genesis 1:25
And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good. 

---

“The Creator is clearly seen,” Paul explained to the Romans 1:20.

Yes, but he says that after what he said in Romans 1:11-13: "I long to see you so that I may...come[.]"  Are you sure you want to accept evidence for god from such a filthy little douchebag?

It depends on what you mean.

[I_am_not_mafia]

What's the definition of a 'kind'?

A kind means the same type of healthy animal that can procreate, in other words it isn't Cat+Dog or horse + cow but rather Cow+Cow, Dog+Dog They are all the same kind.

So your argument against evolution ...

Cross breading is not evolution it is still within the same kind, Another thing is you can't cross bread two kinds of animals so you can't breed a fox and donkey for example.

Can actually be re-phrased using your definition as:

you can't cross bred two animals that cannot breed with one another

Using your circular logic:

I can say anything I want because an arbitrary definition I use only applies to what it applies to.

[The Joker]

A kind means the same type of healthy animal that can procreate, in other words it isn't Cat+Dog or horse + cow but rather Cow+Cow, Dog+Dog They are all the same kind.

So your argument against evolution ...

Cross breading is not evolution it is still within the same kind, Another thing is you can't cross bread two kinds of animals so you can't breed a fox and donkey for example.

Can actually be re-phrased using your definition as:

you can't cross bred two animals that cannot breed with one another

Using your circular logic:

I can say anything I want because an arbitrary definition I use only applies to what it applies to.

I don't believe in the Bible just because the Bible says so, that would be stupid no one would. I believe based on outside sources.

[downbeatplumb]

I love how theists claim that evolution is not scientific, as though the bible is.

The Bible is an extraordinary book that has been prophetically proven through fulfilled prophecy and archaeology, it would be difficult to produce here in text forum. I can't post links yet.

It isn't and it hasn't.

[Tonus]

I don't believe in the Bible just because the Bible says so, that would be stupid no one would. I believe based on outside sources.

Like Billy Graham?

[FatAndFaithless]

Yeah...still not any clearer what a 'kind' is. Especially if you can't explain it with terms we already have.

[Simon Moon]

The Bible is an extraordinary book that has been prophetically proven through fulfilled prophecy and archaeology, it would be difficult to produce here in text forum. I can't post links yet.

A provably incorrect assertion.

The fact that there is SOME archeology that agrees with the Bible, is meaningless. Of course there will be some things that agree, the Bible was written by people that lived in the area in antiquity.

But there is also a lot of archeology that disagrees the Bible. Here is a short list: no archeological evidence for the Exodus, no archeological evidence that the Hebrews were ever in Egypt with anything close to the population the Bible claims, it is unlikely that Nazareth existed at the time of Jesus. There are more.

As far as the so called prophecies, none of them are what Christians claim they are.

If you want, open a thread just concerning the prophecies. We can discuss them.