Creationists do not make sense

[rjh4 is back]

Because what we observe isn't that dogs all come from the same "kind" of dog, and that's the end of it. That original "dog" is part of a several species that all came from the same "kind" of <insert common ancestor here>, and that common ancestor came shares another common ancestor with other organisms.

What the evidence points to is every organism today, whether it be animal or plant, coming from a single common ancestor billions of years ago, namely a (very) simple cell that formed through some process that we currently do not know about (although we can make several likely hypotheses about it).

Your first paragraph uses "kind" in an entirely different way than I was using it.

The rest is an extrapolation/interpretation from what we observe to something we don't and would be based on one's presuppositions. As I stated in another thread, where such an extrapolation conflicts with the Bible, I will take the Bible.

Still waiting for some currently observable fact that is necessarily inconsistent with Biblical creation.

---

Occam's Razor...

Do you think that applying Occam's Razor always leads to the truth?

[littlegrimlin1]

Well said Sae and Adrian!

[Darwinian]

Do you think that applying Occam's Razor always leads to the truth?

It does when the alternative is obviously the product of a desert goat herders imagination.

[downbeatplumb]

Do you think that applying Occam's Razor always leads to the truth?

It does when the alternative is obviously the product of a desert goat herders imagination.

Yeah comes down to a natural explainable process or 'magic man dun it'

As Holmes said 'when you eliminate the impossible the improbable is the answer' or something.
And it devalues it not that the man who wrote this believed in faries.

[Violet]

'fact' 1: God created animals after their kind. Meaning: He didn't design the animals himself, because their archetype already existed.

(Actual) fact 2: It makes less sense, because 'God' is a part of it... and it ignores all of the evidence and proof that it actually did not happen that way. After all... the sun could 'REALLY?' orbit the Earth... except for the FACT that it has been proven that it doesn't.

You need to be more clear because I do not have any idea what you are talking about. What is your basis for your first fact? I do not follow fact 2 and what exactly are you referring to regarding the sun? Again, if you want to discuss specific issues, I am happy to do so, but this kind of thing just seems to muddy the waters.

You presuppose that God created animals after their kind. That means their 'kind' existed BEFORE he created them. It really is quite simple... either this is not his only 'experiment', and humans are no more special in his eyes than are rocks... or he is taking someone else's creations and adding his own little 'twist' to them. This is a leftover part of the bible from when it was polytheistic... or else it is just some of the usual biblical bullshit.

The second one is presenting a parallel example: denying evolution is the exact same as denying that the Sol IV orbits Sol. And that, my friend, is ridiculous

Edit: Downbeat: I love that Holmes quote, even if you messed it up a tad In fact, I just LOVE sherlock holmes. Hmmm... maybe i should go and read the stories again

[rjh4 is back]

You presuppose that God created animals after their kind. That means their 'kind' existed BEFORE he created them. It really is quite simple... either this is not his only 'experiment', and humans are no more special in his eyes than are rocks... or he is taking someone else's creations and adding his own little 'twist' to them. This is a leftover part of the bible from when it was polytheistic... or else it is just some of the usual biblical bullshit.

I see. The word "after" has other meanings...like "10. according to the nature of; in conformity with; in agreement or unison with: He was a man after my own heart. He swore after the manner of his faith." (Obtained from Dictionary.com). Try plugging that meaning in and I think it will make more sense.

The second one is presenting a parallel example: denying evolution is the exact same as denying that the Sol IV orbits Sol. And that, my friend, is ridiculous

You have yet to bring forth any specific observations to discuss and see whether or not they are necessarily inconsistent with the Bible. If you do not want to discuss anything, that is fine, but so far you have only brought conclusions based on your own presuppositions.

[Violet]

I see. The word "after" has other meanings...like "10. according to the nature of; in conformity with; in agreement or unison with: He was a man after my own heart. He swore after the manner of his faith." (Obtained from Dictionary.com). Try plugging that meaning in and I think it will make more sense.

After all... Christian apologists will try find a way to completely and utterly jump out of the opposition by debasing their own texts or by using ridiculous refutations... :insert exasperated emoticon here:

You do realize that if I am creating something in the pursuit that it will look like previous archetypes: I am designing them to model the previous ones, with my own twist, at a date that occurred AFTER the ones I'm basing my designs off of!

You have yet to bring forth any specific observations to discuss and see whether or not they are necessarily inconsistent with the Bible. If you do not want to discuss anything, that is fine, but so far you have only brought conclusions based on your own presuppositions.

I think I linked facts in another thread? My stance is almost a carbon copy of what you read on those links. If you have a disagreement with those observations: please do bring them forward.

[Minimalist]

According to Biblical creation, God created the animals after their "kind". Now it cannot be said exactly what the original "kinds" were.

How very fucking convenient for you. Not only do you embrace ignorance....you worship it!

[Meatball]

Still waiting for some currently observable fact that is necessarily inconsistent with Biblical creation.

What would qualify as a currently observable fact that disproves events that allegedly occured thousands of years ago?

I'm waiting for some currently observable fact that is necessarily inconsistent with the story of Jack and the Beanstalk.

[Pillowpants]

Most Creationists believe in Micro-Evolution because it doesn't threaten there world view.

| > Coyotes
|
Dogs--->Wolfs
|
|>Hyenas

Is what he meant

But the great apes, who share even more amount of our genome in common is not accepted by creationists because it does threaten there world view.