Logic Bot

You're thinking of cosmology and abiogenesis, they are completely different matters entirely, with different disciplines.

Not entirely, what intelligent designer creates the complexity of a snow flake? Evolution taught that we didn't need to postulate a designer to have a workable model that explained biodiversity, science appears to be removing God from the picture. This doesn't mean that he doesn't exist, only that when it comes to lab coats, microscopes, and the field, God doesn't tell us anything.

Evolution is based on observations made while using the scientific method, check out the link I posted to learn more.

You postulate microevolution, but don't include macro, tell me why not? Speciation has been observed both directly and indirectly. Micro and macro do not utilize different mechanisms, so what's the problem?

But a marsupial has similar charecteristics, why is this? Can you postulate a natural explanation?

Evolution does, the explanation created can be shaped and formed by the evidence, and is backed by the evidence.

Evolution tells us they are closely related. Genetics confirms this.

RufusAtticus

How do you make this determination? Tell us how many species are in the same kind with dogs and wolves. What criteria do you use to place them in together? What evidence do you use to exclude similar, but "unrelated" organisms?

If a similar designer is responsible for the similarities between humans and chimps, how do you know that He isn't responsible for the similarities between dogs and wolves or even you and your relatives?

</strong>

Again, what criteria do you use to say this? Plenty of YECs would not agree with you, and what evidence can you offer that this kind exists and is completely separate from the dog kind.

-RvFvS

Coragyps

You Betcha said: "Science shows us that anything that has meaning or a specific complexity was done by an intelligent being."
Heat some hydrogen gas to 7000 degrees K, or just let a star heat it for you. Send the light it emits through a specrtograph. You will see that the light is emitted at specific wavelengths related by an equation of exactly the form V= R*(1/n*n -1/m*m). (I don't know where the Greek letters are on this machine.) In the visible, these lines will occur at wavelengths of 656.2, 486.1, 434.0, 410.1, .... nanometers, no matter the source of the hydrogen that's ionized. (If the source is redshifted, all lines shift equally.)
This is the simplest electronic spectrum. It provides reams of information about the temperature at which it was created, the strength of any magnetic or electrical fields near its origin, the density of the medium it was emitted by ....
A spectrum has meaning. The measurement and interpretation of a spectrum, say of the star Vega, does not affect the source of the light in any way. Yes, it takes some intelligence to decipher the information, but Vega has no intelligence of its own. Hot gas is not an intelligent being.

Logic Bot

I wouldn't expect them to, I would expect them to the be the mechanism through which change happens. The evidence on the other hand, does provide striking credibility to evolution.

As far as I know, evolution doesn't work that way, mutations won't make a new animal, instead they will make the same animal but a bit different due to mutation. Speciation occurs when the species can no longer breed with the species it split from originally. Geographic isolation is what makes the populations different.

Mutations are a change of genetic information, most are copying errors. Furthermore, the eye has evolved a different amount of times. It can be explained by natural selection, and has recently been backed by computer models that simulate natural selection.

The model was very conservative, and showed that an eye could evolve in a geologic blink of an eye.

How is it scientific? What mechanism does the divine use? How would we test his work?

Furthermore, evolution doesn't explain origins, that's a different field entirely.

And what experiment can be performed that shows continental drift happens?

Logic Bot

So does evolution.

Entirely different, one is religous one is scientific.

This is okay for evolution, see above.

The old information was kept, only built upon or changed. Why do you think humans still have a spinal cord?

No problem for evolution atal.

Logic Bot

Could you expound on how it does this?

Logic Bot

Switching the goal post.

This argument is so bad, even AIG doesn't use it.

Would you like to see the link?

Kaina

Thank you for your reply, You Betcha, I appreciate it.

You said: There is only one creation chronology in Genesis. Genesis 2 only gives more description as to the creation of the Garden of Eden and not another creation chronology. My reading of Genesis 2 shows god created man prior to trees (as compared to Gen 1:11, day 3) and fowl (as compared to Gen 1:20-21, day 5), but I’m not an expert so I’ll leave that discussion to someone else.

Your Theory of Creation appears to be: Creation claims a superior intelligence created it (i.e. life), as opposed to a naturalistic origin. This is the approach taken by theistic evolution – God caused life and then maybe had a hand in some of the major evolutionary transitions, particularly the rise of man. If this is your Theory of Creation, then we don’t have an argument, because current science can’t tell the difference between a natural chemical origin of life followed by evolution, and a supernatural origin of life followed by evolution. But this doesn’t seem to be the Theory of Creation put forward by most Christians here. If your Theory of Creation includes a literal reading of Genesis 1, then we need real-world data to back it up.

I’m still not clear on the “kind” question, as well. My two year old nephew thinks Lions and tigers are different kinds, but I’ll admit that’s not scientific. Does your definition of cat kind group the large cats with felis domesticus? Is the kind distinction at the genus level?

Thanks

hezekiah jones

Riddle me this, Mr. Science:

Heuglin's gull, indigenous to Northeastern Europe/Russia, can mate with the Lesser black-backed gull, a resident of Northwestern Europe; but the Lesser black-backed gull cannot mate with the Herring gull, also indigenous to Northwestern Europe.

Tell me: Are Heuglin's gull and the Lesser black-backed gull the same "kind," and the Lesser black-backed gull and the Herring gull different "kinds"? Inquiring minds want to know!

ps418

You betcha wrote:

As far as I know, Evolution claims life and matter originated naturally.

You know very little. "Evolution" says precisely nothing about how life or matter originated. Anyone claiming otherwise has a serious logic deficiency, or is simply ignorant as to what evolution is.