Mageth

Now, a couple of months ago, someone chided creationists claiming they ahd done just that in taking account for rapid evolution, but within a limited range, and thus the variety of species. So you are just flat out wrong to state creationism doesn't make adjustments. They have also dropped and adopted and debated various scenarios of specific ideas, but just like evolutionists, the underlying presuppositions have not been dropped.

But the "adjustment" you refer to is merely an example of what I said - a feeble attempt to shoehorn the data (fossil evidence suggesting diversification of species over time) into the Young Earth model. It ignores the evidence that the diversification occurred (had to occur) over billions of years.

The only "underlying presupposition" of evolution is just that - common descent and diversification of life over billions of years. This "presupposition" is so strongly supported by the evidence as to be about as close to a scientific "fact" as we can get. How that diversification occurred is where evolutionary theory comes in, and that has been, and is still, being adjusted by science as new data is gathered.

So far, data gathered has supported an old earth and evolution as the source of diversity in opposition to the young earth model and creation, and where the data has not matched well with evolutionary theory, the theory has been adjusted.

In spite of all the posturings by YECs, there is no evidence for a young earth outside of the millenia-old, unscientific book upon which YEC is based. Indeed, all data gathered to this point contradicts the unscientific young earth/creation model and supports the scientific old earth/common descent model.

There is no difference in creationists' approach than evolutionists, and this is wht motivates people like me to post, the utter hypocrisy and self-delusion of evolutionists.

"Evolutionists" would never accept as "gospel" an obvious myth, totally contradicted by the evidence, written millenia ago. Creationists do. It's the YECs who are steadfastedly and self-delusionally holding to a model that is totally unsupported, and strongly contradicted, by the evidence.

scigirl

But the fact that the hebrew language is not adequate enough to describe modern day biology tenets should tell you something: It can't describe them NOW, and it couldn't describe them 6000 years ago. The bat/bird confusion is only one of many mistranslated or difficult-to-translate words.

If the bible is such a great biology text, than why didn't God invent a language (from the tower of Babel) that was sufficient and large enough to describe his creation at a decent level? I mean, if I were the supreme ruler of the universe, and I was inspiring a text for the purposes of educating humans about biology I sure as Hell would have given them a better language such to describe it in. Either God was a complete ignoramus when He inspired this alleged biology book (can't even use a language that discriminates between a mammal and a bird), or, the book was written by primitive non-scientific men (not God) to fulfil purposes other than delineation of biology.

Hmm, which one seems more plausible?

scigirl

tgamble

It's quite obvious you haven't. You reject evolution out of blind faith, not because of any evidence.

lpetrich

More likely two separate creation stories than two types of birds. If there is an afterlife, I wonder if the guy who assembled Genesis is kicking himself over how stupid he had made himself look by putting those two stories together without indicating that those were two separate stories.

scigirl

There are no problems here? Well I beg to differ. Since your religion is based soley on the way in which you interpret the bible, than the interpretation is very important.

So how do you objectively know which parts of the bible are factual, and which are mis-interpreted? Does God talk to you every time you open up King James?

scigirl

RufusAtticus

With words like "evolutionism," how can we not believe you are correct?

~~RvFvS~~

lpetrich

However, "species" is defined by whether they would interbreed in the wild; this is the biological species concept. In practice, it may be difficult to tell what would interbreed with what, and with fossils, it is essentially impossible. Thus, many species, and all fossil species, are morphologically-defined species. The next question is, of course, how biospecies and morphospecies map onto each other, and there has been some controversy over that. Stephen Jay Gould in his recent magnum opus has mentioned that question in his discussion of tests of punctuated equilibrium.

However, Randman has not described how to recognize a "created kind".

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

But what about hares chewing their cud? Bible explicitly states that in Leviticus. Hares don't chew cud.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

In fact, if I didn't know better, I would think that you are an evolutionist in disguise trying to make creationists look just plain dumb.

randman

"However, "species" is defined by whether they would interbreed in the wild; this is the biological species concept."

There species classified in different sub-famileis that have interbred in the wild. Also, I agree with the layman's understanding of species being the ability to interbreed, that is not the actual definition of species used by evolutionists.

On the "hare" question, is it your intent to get into biblical translation issues so that this thread is moved?